Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nankai earthquakes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. A possible merge or redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Nankai earthquakes

Nankai earthquakes (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)

This article's title is ambiguous with Nankai megathrust earthquakes, and that's because this article is merely about a subset of the other topic. Both of them are about Nankai megathrust earthquakes. I don't see a reason for this to exist as a separate article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect or merge. It looks like the redundancy issue would be settled by just having one article at least for the two main articles in question. My first thought is that Nankai earthquakes actually might be a good target overall (which would include content from the megathrust article). That way you could have the article split itself up by the subtopics discussed so far internally or have a sort of WP:NATDAB. Basically get people to the general topic through the search bar first and then figure out additional navigation like explaining the megathrust content, etc. I'm not an earthquake person though, so do you think that approach would work ⁠BarrelProof? If it's too generic of a title to house the two I could understand that, but at least in my first superficial glance through, this seems like it works. KoA (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not an expert either. Dekimasu had some good comments. I just don't think things should stay the way they are. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks