Talk:3909 04

From VfD:

I pulled this off Wikipedia:Cleanup; despite my rewrite, I have no reason to believe this warrants an article of its own. The legend is well-documented on RMS Titanic, in a section which, despite needing a rewrite itself, is longer than this stub. Austin Hair 06:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge & redirect - not that we need a VFD vote for that! —Stormie 06:52, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I was initially hesitant to bring this to VfD, but I figured I'd play it safe (especially given its listing on WP:CU). Austin Hair 06:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Do not merge, because, as the nomination says, it's already in the Titanic article. Redirect or delete. Redirect if anyone really believes this is going to be a search term. Delete if not. Geogre 13:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not redirect. DJ Clayworth 15:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete the article, as the subject-matter isn't important enough to warrant its own entry. Also not notable enough for a redirect. Psychonaut 17:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Psychonaut -- Delete, do not redirect --Improv 05:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If, as the article says, the urban legend is unfounded, then the article should be deleted outright. Do not merge, do not redirect, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00 $3909.04. --Ardonik.talk() 20:03, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't care whether it is kept as a redirect or not, but that a legend is unfounded is not a reason why a redirect should not exist or even whey there should not be an article on the subject. We have various articles on Hoaxes. In this case, should the RMS Titanic article increase greatly in size, this article might well be recreated, especially if someone produced information on the source and spread of the story. Jallan 23:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The Titanic's hull number was 401. Several of the external links listed in the RMS Titanic entry corroborate this as well as Google. An entry on a thoroughly debunked urban legend should be deleted. Spatch 22:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The article is quite clear in its presentation of the claim as an urban legend. We also have articles on conspiracy theories and classical mythology; these exist because of the noteworthiness of their respective subjects rather than their solid basis in fact, but nobody's suggesting that we delete them. The issue here is not the veracity of the legend, but whether or not the article has any hope of being developed further (no), and whether or not we should keep the title as a redirect to the topic's more comprehensive treatment in RMS Titanic (current consensus says no). Austin Hair 02:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak merge and redirect to RMS Titanic, or else keep. Perfectly legitimate info about a reasonably common urban legend. — Gwalla | Talk 21:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • As I mention above, twice, the topic is already discussed in a subsection of RMS Titanic. Do you have any reason to believe that readers will look for this information under the title 3909 04? Austin Hair 00:17, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: Somebody must have, or else they wouldn't have created the article. — Gwalla | Talk 01:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant info from this and then Delete. Andre 20:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion