Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Funnel Liners

:{{la|Four Funnel Liners}} ([{{fullurl:Four Funnel Liners|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Funnel Liners}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article is completely redundant with :Category:Ocean liners with four funnels, and derives the vast majority of its content from existing Wikipedia articles on these ships. All 14 four-stackers that existed have their own articles, and exist in the category. So ultimately, this article boils down to redundant listcruft. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but stubbify, getting rid of all the copy-pasted stuff from other ship articles. This appears to be a notable subject as a classification of ship, and merits definition and explanation independent of the individual ships that are of this classification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum Also this article should be moved to Four funnel liner. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have brought it down to a stub per your suggestion, though I still don't believe it's particularly notable as a classification. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I worked on the article a little, including a mention that four funnel liners became popular around the turn of the century as a symbol of "size and safety". I think there may be more here than meets the eye historically; engineering-wise there's probably no real significance to this. According to the RMS Titanic article, the fourth funnel was added to make the ship look "impressive", which implies that this was an important design feature of the era. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless there is some engineering advantage to four funnels, I don't think this is notable. (The fourth funnel on Titanic was a [http://titanicstation.blogspot.com/2007/05/titanics-funnels-or-smokestacks_21.html fake].) Besides, as the nominator noted, all of the ships have their own articles, so there's no need for a bare list. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• If multiple WP:Reliable sources can be found demonstrating that there is something to this subject more than the fact that a whole bunch of ships had four hollow cylinders sticking out the top, I might be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment, I'm inclined to suggest deletion of this article as redundant to the category. The ships listed all appear to be independantly notable both for being the largest ships in the world at their time and for other reasons percuilar to the operational history of each ship, but I don't think this individual notability is inherited by the subject. -- saberwyn 10:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is only a stub at present, following recent work on it. I would assume that a ship would only have four funnels if it had four boilers and the associated engines. I recall a reference to a British naval ship, possibly HMS Hardinge, which had four funnels and was taken to the Middle East during WWI, because unsophisticated natives would be impressed by such a ship. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (not an expert)
• Actually, most of the four-funnel ships were given four funnels for appearance only. In most cases, one or more funnels were "dummy" funnels, as in they served no functional purpose except for aesthetics. This, however, is not unique to four-funnel ships. Many ships with two and three funnels also contained dummy funnels. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The existence of a category is irrelevant per WP:CLS. I have briefly browsed the sources available for this and consider them adequate to support a fine article. For example, I like the detail that visibility on the Acquitania was measured by the number of funnels you could see from the bridge. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Categories are not redundant to lists. MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2008 (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.