Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft seat map

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 keep on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft seat map

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

Aircraft seat maps are not a notable topic. The article has been unsourced since its creation and tagged since 2007. The current article seems to mostly serve as a host for links to commercial websites advising travelers on seat selection. Will Beback talk 22:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change the title back to the original, Aircraft seat configuration), adding material from the various good asources that are actually available.( title to Aircraft seat configuration at Google Books. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which are the best sources? The sources I see in the Google Books link appear to be short mentions. Could this be merged in with Airliner or Aircraft cabin (another unsourced article)? Will Beback talk 02:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems to have a lot of potential. For example, here's a detailed account of algorithms for seat inventory and allocation: Airline Operations and Scheduling. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page you linked to in that source source seems to be on a different topic entirely - how to structure fares. There's a later chapter in that book on "Aircraft boarding strategy" which is a little closer, but it's still a different topic. Will Beback talk 22:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject matter is notable. There are websites dedicated to the topic alone, and news reports comparing airlines to each other. Certainly, the article as presented here is not written very well, but that is not a reason to delete. I agree that the article should be renamed. The new name should reflect the fact that only airliners are compared, and there should be no confusion that the seats contain maps, or are upholstered with map material. :P Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest some specific ources? Will Beback talk 02:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can. Some can be harvested from the SeatGuru article. Others: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
  - Perhaps the name should be Airliner seat arrangement. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, some of those look usable. What about Airline seating as a title? That could cover the actual seats as well, which are occasionally written about. Will Beback talk 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your article name suggestion 'Airline seating' is appropriate. I'm flexible on that, for sure. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Airline seating#Seating layout seems to cover seating maps already. Maybe we should just merge this material and redirect this title to that section. Will Beback talk 05:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That suggestion returns us to the discussion of whether there is enough material in the topic to merit its own article, specifically whether it might be expanded to swamp the Airline seat#Seating layout section with too much detail. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If we remove the unsourced material from the "seat map" article then there will be zero text left. I don't think that would swamp the other article. That article already contains significant material on the topic, and it has some sources. If the section gets too long then it could all be split off together. Will Beback talk 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I was imagining a larger version that contained more referenced text on the topic. I was not examining what was already here and holding that as the maximum possible. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To my knowledge there is no other encyclopaedia in the world which can tell you that Lufthansa doesn't have row numbers 13 (unlucky?) and 17 (I'd love to know why!). That alone justifies a Keep ;-) ... OK, I added that information myself but it's true (and sourced) --TraceyR (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Airline seat#Seating layout as suggested above. In particular, adding the discussion of how the airlines use the seat maps (as mentioned in the last paragraph of the Airline seat article section) is needed. The discussion of how seats are designated (number-letter pattern, skipped letters and row numbers) better belongs in the Airline seat article anyway, since those are seating layout issues that are reflected in the map, and not an intrinsic features of the map itself. As an alternative to the merge, the article can be Kept, but a cleanup is needed: Adding sources, removing or fixing unsubstantiated opinion statements ("but the quality of these seat maps is sometimes questionable"), and moving content that doesn't belong to other articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airline seat. I don't see there would be enough material to justify an independent article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airline seat, per user GraemeLeggett. Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)}^{(I love Wikipedia!)} 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to airline seat. Jumping on the bandwagon. Will Beback talk 11:25, 31 January 2011 (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.