Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admission to an event or establishment

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 delete. I would be happy to userfy this to anyone who wants to merge any of it J04n(talk page) 16:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admission to an event or establishment[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DICDEF at best. The rest is OR. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked for sources in the past for this article. I wish there was some book or scholarly article that related the history of the process by means of which one exchanged a resource in exchange for the right to attend an event or establishment. I would like this page to be a hub to other articles explaining economic models of admission and explaining various types of admission. In particular, I personally am interested in how models for admission to entertainment compare economically and socially to admission to necessary services, such as comparing admission to a spa versus admission to a hospital. There are plenty of sources which talk about economic barriers to people accessing all kinds of services and events, and I feel like the papers are talking about "admission", but I can find no straightforward unified theory of the concept of admission. I wish that this article could be kept but I am not sure how to back my wish with supporting evidence to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least move the relevant links to Admission. Table reservation could be generalized to include the reservation info.--Patrick (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a whole lot of OR...is any of this even saveable if it were to be moved elsewhere? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, complete Original Research. Our content must be based on independent third party sources. This is a narrow focus anthropological essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to License or Profit (real property). Yes, those darn lawyers have thought of everything, but I'm not sure what this particular article is about. I think the core of the article is salvageable, but it seems to define a license or profit. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an encyclopedic concept. Probably needs to be renamed "Admission" with the disambiguation page renamed "Admission (disambiguation)"... Alternatively, perhaps, Entrance fee. Yes, this is unsourced, but that's not necessarily a killer, nor is the fact that nobody may ever have published a scholarly monograph on the history of admissions. Insufficiency of this piece should be correctable through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A case can be made that this should be a sub-page of fee — which is itself kind of a mess. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of changing the name to entrance fee if this closes Keep, for the record. That would seem to be the encyclopedic concept expressed most succinctly. It is already a redirect to this article. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of an admission fee is something that can be covered. The problem here is that it is a subject of poorly defined core and scope that has been started unsourced. Fundamentally, the content here is not based on secondary sources. That sort of article creation is a thing of the past and should be discouraged. It should be deleted, but recreation invited if it is recreated based on sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 15. Snotbot t • c » 13:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just doesn't seem to be an encyclopedia article here. --Michig (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:COATRACK. You see it now, since the article has a lot of talk about discrimination and being DENIED admission... take out the talk about discrimination/denial... and you have a dicdef and or a WP:ESSAY This is a no brainer. Delete. Roodog2k (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not that there is much to merge, but it could be redirected to admission, ticket (admission), or any other related articles. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is unreferenced/OR, but it may have potential if it can be improved, although as is, it borders on a dicdef.^King Jakob _C2 22:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable as various aspects are documented in detail in sources such as Professional Event Coordination, New York State Sales and Use Tax Law and Regulations and The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission And Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, And Princeton. The dicdef claim is confused per WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." Warden (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The third paragraph of WP:DICDEF says "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history". You'll note that this article is devoted to several meanings of one concept.^King Jakob _C2 23:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referencing a source about Admission and Exclusion at Harvard just proves my point about a WP:COATRACK. An article about discrimination has it's place, but not here. Roodog2k (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some topics are too small for an encyclopedia article, this one seems to be too large. When you have an article that potentially includes admission to a movie show, admission to a hospital to be treated, and admission to a university to study for a degree I think you have a case of original research and/or synthesis based on the word "admission," not on a concept that exists across language -- which is a subject discussed in "not a dictionary." -BigJim707 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And thats where the WP:COATRACK comes in. The article begins to talk about discrimination, and how someone could be discriminated against. As it stands now, the article is at last as much about discrimination as it is about admission. The scope of this is way too large in general, as you say. Roodog2k (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.