Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seating

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'll start a move discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seating[edit]

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

The article title "Seating" doesn't really describe this article, which is about seating at entertainment venues. It has one source that cites a ban in one city of one type of seating but no sources to actual define seating or any of these seating arrangements and absolutely nothing towards notability. It acts more like original research for the article creator's personal selection of what to include. Stadium seating has an article, perhaps reserved seating and/or general admission deserve articles too, but "seating" is a broad and unnotable topic and this article has little to it. I would like to also point out that of festival seating, general admission (which I personally see used to describe ANY situation of unassigned seating - including festival seating) and reserved seating are TICKETING arrangements or seating ASSIGNMENT types, and are not TYPES of seating (eg: stadium seating is a way seats can be arranged. General admission is a way seats are assigned). The one section on "chair arrangement" which is the only part that actually talks about seating is woahfully underinformative and treats the reader like a moron (seats usually face the thing people are there to see? shocking) This section is a two-sentence paragraph that says almost nothing about entertainment seating, and another one-sentence paragraph that talks about seating on a vehicle in which it says seats could be forward, backward, or facing the side.... why the article singles out only these two venues to discuss (without even discussing them at all), I don't knowTheHYPO (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 57 other articles link to it. I could see this article covering ergonomic issues and the distance between seats on airplanes, airplane boarding procedures, etc. The article needs a lot of work, but should not be deleted. Racepacket (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content should not be deleted, expansion is welcome. Patrick (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A series of dicdefs, followed by trivia. Not much here to keep. Hairhorn (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is this article about? Notability doesn't mean every noun in every language. At best this is a redirect to something pertinent. I don't see any compelling arguments about what that would be. Shadowjams (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . If it remains limited to this topic, adjust the title. There are sources available. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content is well deserving of an article. Naming is something that should be resolved. Perhaps the article can be changed into a disambiguation page with different articles for each type of seating. --Pink Bull 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading everything, I find no reason actually for deletion - hence default to Keep. Discussions about the article name belong on the article talk page, not AfD. Collect (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or failing that, Move to Festival seating. This isn't actually an article about seating as a concept. The original version describes a mode of seating called "Festival seating" which may or may not be a verifiable term of art with reliable sources. The basis for this is a single Cincinnati newspaper article describing a tragedy in at a 1979 concert and the city's reassessment in 2004. If "Festival seating" is an actual term then this article, pared down, is a good starting place. Note that most of the incoming links have nothing to do with the article; seating is a generic enough term to be caught up in random wiki-linking. Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On further investigation, this article was at Festival seating, and concerned solely with that topic, until Patrick (talk · contribs) (who has commented in this debate further up) started generalizing the article in 2007. This strikes me as a step backwards; taking a reasonable if undersourced article on a discrete concept and using it as the basis for an unimaginably broad article. The content should move back to Festival seating and revert back to its original form. No opinion on the possibility of a generic "seating" article but there's a article to be written on the narrower subject. Mackensen (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2009 (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.