Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft seat map (2nd nomination)

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. I'm going to defer a rename to consideration at an RM should anyone want to go there. Courcelles 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft seat map

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

The concept of an aircraft seat map does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Anybody that wishes to argue for the article to be kept will need to cite specific examples of coverage in order to not have me reply with a link to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and/or WP:ITSNOTABLE and/or WP:ILIKEIT. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 17:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yep - multiple reliable sources, and of interest to any user of an online booking process as well. Thus bith notable per sources and encyclopedic value. A two-fer. It could also include such sources as [1] indicating how fuel costs impact seat configuration, [2] appears to be on poiint as well. No reason to delete - default to Keep. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...although both of those seem to be about seat configuration rather than about the aircraft seat diagrams – in the same way that we have separate articles for town planning and map. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you failed to note that the topic is 1. Encyclopedic in nature. Which is rule #1 IIRC. 2. That the article is sourced, and that the topic is reliably sourced and 3. That additional reliable sources on the topic fully establish notability of the topic. 4. Finally - that "deletion" actually requires specific "reasons for deletion." Now that the topic is sourced, notable and encyclopedic, there is preccisou little reason to flog a dead horse here. By the way, the onus is on grounds for deletion last I checked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have not established that this topic is notable. You have (perhaps) established that a different topic is notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►Boothroyd─╢ 18:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appending: Guess where Aircraft seat configuration leads? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails to address the points made in the previous discussion. Warden (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I clearly rebutted the points by pointing out that they failed to produce sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't; you have made no specific reference to the previous discussion - all we have here is some vague bluster. Warden (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion did not include direct references to any specific sources, therefore it did not establish notability. What can I do to make that statement less vague? (You, meanwhile, with your vote, have failed to provide any reason to keep the article.) ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It contained multiple direct references to specific sources. Warden (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move per Collect. I think it would be better to move this content to Aircraft seat configuration and switch the redirects. smithers - talk 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Smithers. Seat configuration is a big topic - undoubtedly encyclopedic and the factors taken into consideration and the differences they make would be approriate in a Wikipedia article. Mapping as used here is a dependent topic and would most usefully be covered within a configuration article. --AJHingston (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but better sourcing. This is a different topic than Aircraft seat configuration. It addresses the vexing question of why you select a seat that appears to be in a comfortable part of a cabin, using a perfectly good seat map, and find yourself listening to toilet flushes behind your head all the way to Tokyo. Unfortunately, the article seems to be mostly original research. Topic is fine, writing quality is fine, so keep it and bring it up to sourcing standards. Bella the Ball (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to provide any sources, or is this just a WP:MUSTBESOURCES comment? ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, there so must be sources. No, seriously, I don't know whether or not there are sources, and I don't have enough time in the day to track them down. The main thrust of my "keep" is because the article is about a relevant topic. It works as an enhanced stub. We keep stubs if they are about legitimate topics. We don't tell people who vote on whether a stub should stay that they should go out and find the sources. So yeah, there must be sources. Or not. There are tags for that, no? Bella the Ball (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes, reliable sources talk about it (though I'd dispute the reliable source status of 3 out of the 4 sources used). That doesn't mean that the topic should be a stand alone. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 26 August 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.