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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olancha Earthquake Sequence (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:EVENT. This is a non-notable event. The article lacks encyclopedic value and it cannot be re-shaped into something that is. At the time its occurrence, this probably wouldn't even have been appropriate for Wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I left notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no news articles whatsoever about this. My only hesitation would be in deleting the liquefaction bit, which if I am to believe this article is the event's one claim to fame in scientific circles. However, I don't think liquefaction actually has a minimum magnitude at which it can occur, so I personally suspect there's not going to be anything merge- or keep- worthy there when someone finds the time to double-check the papers cited. Even if the liquefaction bit ends up actually being a unique thing worth mentioning, it's probably better off being merged somewhere else. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For California, this is not a notable earthquake as indicated by the lack of news articles. Even the liquefaction has occurred with other, more notable earthquakes. That said, I would suggest merging the "Tectonic setting" of thie article with the "Geology" section of Owens Valley.
• I can find one dedicated source and several more references but I didn't check if they establish GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 30 July 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.