Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG’s WP:SIGCOV. Article was previously PRODed for this reason, which was challenged with two reasons. First reason was “not all surprising there are so few sources given it was in Algeria” and second reason was “22+ deaths does mean notable”. At the time of this AfD, there is 3 trivial government sources (2 lack much info and are basic information providers, similar to that of primary sources, and 1 is dead) and 2 academic sources. I consider this article to only have 2 reliable, secondary sources, i.e. the 2 academic sources, which technically aren’t actually used as references for the article, as they are used in a Further reading section, and not actual references. Per the general notability guidelines, I do not see any significant coverage of the topic, which seems to actually be confirmed in the PROD challenge. The number of deaths also does not establish/guarantee notability, especially given the lack of reliable secondary sources used, or well not used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Event Writer, you need to tag the article with an AFD tag and also, if you haven't done it, inform the article creator of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Done and notification for creator was already done, with the article creator acknowledging it. Thanks for the reminder! Have a wonderful day. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Seems like a good faith misunderstanding of notability guidelines. Per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I've reviewed the two papers listed in further reading and they both provide in depth SIGCOV of the subject, the papers are entirely about this earthquake. The papers were published in 2004 and 2009, this 1999 event demonstrates WP:PERSISTENCE —siro χ o 05:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: Quick question. So with WP:NEXIST, I see what you mean. That said, the articles creator was opposed to using secondary media-references to determine notability. So looking at WP:NEXIST, I see the clause, Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Based on the article creator’s comment, and ignoring the basically primary sources (government ones), the article only has those two academic papers to show notability. If this was something from 80+ years ago, I would say that would be fine, since science wasn’t nearly close to modern times back then. But this is an earthquake from 1999, where new 2023 college graduates were alive at the time. Do you think those two academic papers (and solely those 2 papers, given the creator’s own comments) can truly show the SIGCOV nature of a modern-day earthquake? I’m perfectly fine if your answer is yes, I just wanted to sort of ask/double check, given I think you were unaware of the creator’s comment about really only using those 2 academic papers as sources for the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your question. So first off, philosophically, to quote WP:N, Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. I.e. if we can find the sources, it's not an indiscriminate inclusion. If it's not indiscriminate, I feel very comfortable also considering WP:NOTPAPER.

Now, to be more specific. 1999 Earthquake that took lives and caused damage to structures. Scientific papers 5 years and 10 years later. I feel comfortable saying this has passed a retroactive WP:10YEARTEST (which of course is just an essay).

Now, expanding beyond the scope of your question and moving further away from philosophical to be really pragmatic, a quick proquest search shows brief non-trivial coverage in a 2023 paper [1]. This subject is not the focus of the paper, but it's certainly not forgotten by any means.

And, lastly, to round off more philosophically. The creator's work is much appreciated but they don't WP:OWN the article. Certainly articles about earthquakes need a scientific foundation, but we can use secondary media reporting for non-scientific claims. (Though, generally we do need to be cautious about primary media reporting coming through news sources, (eg reactions), and keep WP:PRIMARY in mind -- claims that come from news media should be synthesized by the source, not just repetition of primary source claims)

I hope this clarifies my thoughts. —siro χ o 07:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator is correct in this case. Breaking news coverage is a primary source and using it in articles is bad practice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. Mccapra (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a topic is not notable just because the author WP:OWNs the article and won’t add the sources. And 22 deaths will almost always guarentee an article.216.250.210.89 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I honestly don't see a reason to get rid of it. If anything, this is a stub article that can be improved, so it should be treated as such. ChessEric 20:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary sources have been found to exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.