Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Chile

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Chile. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Chile|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Chile. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to South America.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Chile

[edit]

2025 Drake Passage earthquake

[edit]
2025 Drake Passage earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:EVENT; this is an earthquake with no lasting impact or in-depth coverage unworthy of its own article. Has not caused serious impact or disruption. Some notable aspects of the article suitable for Wikipedia can be merged into List of earthquakes in 2025 as the list has dictated. An article is unnecessary Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for similar reasons. Quake1234 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quake1234 you need to explicitly vote by adding a bolded Support/Oppose or Keep/Delete FYI Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a high-magnitude earthquake—the strongest in over 75 years in the area. It caused no damage but did lead to evacuations due to tsunami warnings. Many less significant earthquakes, especially in the United States, have their own Wikipedia pages. Pristino (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pristino, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that notability is based on the sourcing, not how important it feels or whether there are other articles that might also need to be deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point: 2018 Hawaii earthquake. It had a lower magnitude that this one (6.9 vs. 7.4) and occurred in an earthquake-prone area as well. No damage was reported. Not WP:WAX, because (1) there was talk of deleting the article, but no AfD was initiated, and (2) it has survived a full seven years on Wikipedia. Pristino (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to take the Hawaii article to AfD. Dawnseeker2000 16:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thebiguglyalien, here you have the source you are asking for: Montes, Carlos (May 2, 2025). «Magallanes registra el terremoto más fuerte en 75 años por activación de desconocida falla de Scotia». La Tercera. Consultado el 2 de mayo de 2025. It exist in the article and is used to state that what Pristino wrote here. Ingminatacam (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It had strong media coverage and much expectation in Chile (national level) and Argentina (provincial level) regarding a tsunami that was expected. It was felt and caused alarm in numerous settlements including the cities of Punta Arenas, Río Grande, Ushuaia and Puerto Williams. Various scientific enquiries on this unusual earthquake are underway. Ingminatacam (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strongest earthquake in the area in the last 75 years [1]. I would say that's something. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "No secondary coverage", my aunt... There's solid coverage of characteristics and emergency response. I don't know where this idea comes from that earthquakes without a death toll are not notable. Have fun enshrining that in a guideline. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No notable impact on people or structures from the shaking or tsunami, not especially scientifically notable, just occurred in a less common area. Others pointed out how it's the largest there in 75 years but that alone isn't enough to warrant its own article. Just another knee-jerk reaction of an article made shortly after the earthquake happened. MagikMan1337 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from WP:EVENT, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". I'm not seeing anything significant published after the day of the earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the news is over. It was a big scare and a few news articles continue have continued the days after. To truly evaluate for its lasting impact we would need among other things to see the upcomming scientific publications on this earthquake. Right now I would argue evidence points towards a lasting relevance by the scare it produced, the apparent impact on the evaluation of hazards reponse and the scientific enquiry that emerged from it. Ingminatacam (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"lasting relevance by the scare it produced", it has only been 10 days and i'm not seeing any English or Spanish language sources cover this event since May 4. A look at the sourcing, nearly all of them were dated on the day of the event, and a simple search couldn't yield more recent coverage (WP:NOTNEWS). Regarding the scientific aspects; seismologists/earthquake geologists will study all sorts of earthquakes regardless of magnitudes or their impact and publish their findings in journals/reports. That cannot be an a criteria for keeping an article. And I haven't seen any papers about this yet so that's WP:CRYSTALBALL assuming anything will be published.

Nearly 70% of all M7+ earthquakes happen in the ocean every year; some triggering tsunami warnings/advisories and lead to evacuations that can last for hours but do not cause significant impact on societies overall. It is WP:INDISCRIMINATE if this article establishes the minimum criteria for a standalone article and encourages more editors to create pages for unworthy events. Not all earthquakes need to have an article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the way you are attempty to apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is clearly very unusual event in southern Argentina and Chile the strongest earthquake in the area in 70+ years and one of the five strongest (Mw) in Chile in the last ten years. For some people in Global North this may seem of little relevance given that it does impact their lives nor their academic interest. This may be just is just as irrelevant to them as the article of random member of house of parliament in Argentina or Chile. They just dont care, but locally it is fully relevant, as I have said before because of number of impacted people (evacuated), the saturated media coverage and the more lasting impact on national hazard warning system and applied research. Ingminatacam (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest earthquake in X number of years does not automatically establishes notability and fulfil the criteria for an article. It is not an unusual event either, where are you getting this idea from? Chile and Argentina are on an active plate boundary which produces frequent earthquake, there is nothing odd about this. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Few things in Earth Science are odd in the sense you seem to portray. Few if none of the 100+ volcanoes in Chile is "odd", and the same is true for the >9 Mw megathrust earthquakes along the boundaries of Nazca and South American plates. They have occurred for millions of years and will continue to happen.
With regards to the 2025 Drake Passage earthquake it is the most noteworthy earthquake in many decades in that part of the world. That is nothing that can be swept away with an undue claim of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Few earthquakes of this magnitude and earthquakes in this part of the world recieve this amount of media attention causing such ammount of alarm and, judging earthquakes by magnitude (Mw) alone, as I hope you are not doing, is I would say regrettable. There are many factors to ponder in an earthquake, including its depth, potential to cause harm och material damage and the scientific and public interest it may arise. Ingminatacam (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earthquakes are always expected in a seismically active zone, it does not mean we create an article for every one of them we feel needs an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of information for every earthquake we think should have an article.

judging earthquakes by magnitude (Mw) alone, as I hope you are not doing, is I would say regrettable, am I judging this event solely on magnitude? No, you did not read my comments right. I have considered a lot of variables in my delete/keep rationale and my judgement considering the low-impact and lack of lasting coverage is delete (evacuations do not count). There has not been any detailed scientific queries yet; if there are any you can recreate this article again in the future. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A single earthquake occurring in a less common area doesn't warrant its own page Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think you commentary offer a valid rationale for deletion as that is not sole criteria for inclusion of this article. Besides its relative rarity it caused great alarm and the evacuation of more than 1,800 people on two continents (South America and Antarctica), saturated the news coverage for about a day and it has evidently had an impact on the seismic hazard management and study in Chile. You have to take the whole into consideration. Ingminatacam (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's enough national and international coverage on RS about the event (BBC, ABC News, RTE, CBS News, New York Times, Reuters, Al Jazeera, DW, USA Today) [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] To meet WP:EVENT, the guidelines say the event should be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". It's a rare event, an earthquake very strong for the area and near the surface (unlike the ones seen elsewhere in South America) [9]. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all routine (obligatory) stories from news outlets on the day of the event. News organizations create short (low effort) posts like these for the potential of advertising clicks. See WP:DOGBITESMAN. We prefer to have extended coverage of events that show more substance and enduring effects. There really isn't much to say about this one right now, but there's always a potential for more substantial sources in the future. We'll just have to wait and see, but these sources don't describe anything encyclopedic at the moment. Dawnseeker2000 13:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Articles proposed for deletion (WP:PROD)

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Chile&oldid=1289850871"