Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthquake fish


 * 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 merge to Giant oarfish. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Earthquake fish

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be an unnecessary page considering that 2/3 of the linked articles are redlinks. Kb03 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep A variety of fish behave in a variety of ways when an earthquake happens or is imminent. And there are myths that the earthquakes are caused by the movement of a giant fish.  All these aspects can reasonably be covered under this title and so the page needs expansion and improvement per WP:IMPERFECT.  See Earthquakes and Animals: From Folk Legends to Science for an example of the topic's potential. Andrew D. (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: the following paper says "Swarms of earthworms appeared and deep sea fish, Trachipterus ishikawae, called messenger of dragon palace and earthquake fish by Taiwanese people", which at least confirms its existence as a name for Trachipterus ishikawae, but that's a redlink. Ikeya, M., Yamanaka, C., Mattsuda, T., Sasaoka, H., Ochiai, H., Huang, Q., ..., & Nakagawa, T. (2000). Electromagnetic pulses generated by compression of granitic rocks and animal behavior. Episodes, 23. —Kodiologist (t) 19:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article, though in need of much improvement, could certainly be expanded to discuss the connection between fish and earthquakes in a more generalized sense. It is not a DAB page and therefore the redlinks are not a concern. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Giant oarfish. Agree with the OP. I'm not seeing any strong evidence one way or the other on the issue of whether the other two will have articles at some point, so I see no reason to delete content that could eventually be spun out into its own article(s). But if the content is merged, the WP:CIRCULAR citations to Chinese Wikipedia should be removed. (As an aside, while I don't think it's related, it is suspicious that a shitty article on a Taiwanese topic would show up right after WAM. I was not that active on WAM this year, but I do think the event needs to get its act together; they were reluctant, earlier, to implement stricter content rules as it might discourage content creation, but the number of entries seems to have gone down every year regardless, without a forced improvement in article quality.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Giant oarfish if that's a match.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge information is interesting, but this is not disambiguation material, as the species don't seem to have the common name mentioned, just share an association with earthquakes.  But i think it could be added to the earthquake article, of if there is an article on earthquake mythology, as well as the species articles.  All accepted species are inherently notable, so redlinks shouldn't be an issue here. --Nessie (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Giant oarfish as most immediately applicable target. #2 (Regalecus russelii) just has a conceptual association, #3 does not even have a source, and both are redlinks - that's very meagre grounds for a disambiguation. Mention of R. russelii can be made there if the earthquake association is explained in the article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:53, 6 December 2018 (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.