Merging with outburst flood or changing the article's scope?[edit]

I oppose merging with outburst floods. Paleoflooding should in fact have an entity in itself, the problem is that the article is not focused on what the title states. The meaning of Paleoflooding is clear: the study of old (prehistorical or geological) floods. These include the more common meteorological floods studied from geological record. Outburst flood are another particular case, important enough to deserve an article as apparent from its present state. What makes the paleoflooding article weird is that it devotes so much space to a single example of outburst flood: the Agassiz one. That section should be moved to a new article Agassiz outburst flood comparable to Bonneville flood or to Missoula floods. Then would this article make more sense. Gaianauta (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]