This was a theory particularly advocated by Spirídon Marinátos, who excavated at Akrotíri. He hypothesised in the 1930s that the Minoan culture was eradicated by the eruption of Thíra, and that it was this cataclysm that led to the Atlantis story.

The answer to your question is: no.

It suffers from several counts of cherry-picking the convenient bits of Plato's story and ignoring the inconvenient bits. It picks out the following elements --

• Atlantis is a sea power
• Atlantis ended up beneath the waves
• this happened in the dim and distant past

and ignores many elements such as the following --

• Plato's Atlantis doesn't suffer a cataclysm, it ends up underwater because of flooding cycles over a period of many millennia
• Plato's Atlantis is in the Atlantic Ocean
• the shallows left by Plato's Atlantis are the reason why it's impossible to sail through Gibraltar into the ocean (in fact it is navigable, of course)
• Plato (or rather Plato's Kritias) gives a lengthy description of the layout of the city, the terrain, and the continent that it's on
• Plato's Atlantis is the size of Libya and Asia combined (roughly, the Maghreb plus Turkey)
• Athens beat off Plato's Atlantis in a war that took place 9000 years before Plato's time (8000 years before Athens existed)
• the 9000-year figure is tied up with Plato's ideas about reincarnation cycles

There's another point, not directly necessary for the 'Atlantis = Santoríni' theory but still worth remembering, that

• we now know that the Minoan culture absolutely was not wiped out by the Thíra eruption.

The believed location of Atlantis didn't just jump from the Atlantic Ocean to Santoríni. It had to do quite a lot of migrating, and most of that migrating was motivated by racism and nationalism. There's an amazing article by Dan Edelstein, 'Hyperborean Atlantis, Jean-Sylvain Bailly, Madame Blavatsky, and the Nazi myth' [Sci-hub link], where Edelstein shows that in the 18th century Bailly used the spurious equivalence 'Atlantis = Hyperborea' to turn Atlantis into a floating signifier: Atlantis could be anywhere, Atlanteans could be anyone.

The payoff for this for Bailly was that any admired group in history could be reimagined as descendents of Atlanteans. There was no need any more to imagine that everyone was descended from Noah (which would mean everyone is Semitic) or from ancient Indians (as per Voltaire). If Hyperboreans in the far north could be Atlanteans, that meant Nordic peoples could be imagined as descended from them: white Europeans could be Atlanteans. And the ancient Hellenes could be Atlanteans too.

Atlantis turned into a way of casting 'Nordic' Europeans as the archetype of all civilisation and culture, and casting evryone else as a separate, inferior species. But these ideas appealed to ethnic nationalists outside 'Nordic' Europe too, such as Marinátos.

So Bailly migrated Atlantis from the Atlantic Ocean to somewhere near Russia; later ideas put Atlantis/Hyperborea in the North Sea, equating it with Doggerland (a submerged shelf east of England). Marinátos' move brought Atlantis home to his own country.

I guess the point is that none of this has anything to do with the story as told by Plato. It's all ethnic politics. If you read what Plato actually says -- about shallows making Gibraltar unnavigable, a war fought by the Athenians in 9300 BCE, a continent the size of the Maghreb plus Turkey, cycles of flooding over many millennia, a story preserved by ancient mystics and retold by a notorious mass murderer -- it's pretty transparent that it's fiction. It's only modern ulterior motives that can make such a daft story tolerable.