Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airport chair


 * 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. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Airport chair

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I cannot find any sources specifically covering the seating in airports. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is virtually incomprehensible, with statements such as "If you sit down in few and poor conditions,people will eyebrows. This means not only in public, very short stay, but also means that many attractive and valuable outdoor activities will be killed out." This subject may well be notable enough to warrant an article, but it would be better to delete this entire article and start from scratch. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above recommendation is no longer applicable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Sort of interesting essay, but whether it's homework or a Wikipedia article, citations and sources are indispensible. I'm old enough to remember when some airports had chairs that had TV sets on the arm that would give you an hour of local programming for a set number of quarters, remember to cite it to "Mandsford said so" if you put it in an article.  All kidding aside, I agree with Ironholds that there's nothing specifically about seating in airports, though I'm sure that train stations, bus stations, airports, and most waiting rooms have some considerations for mass seating.  Mandsford 23:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete an airport chair is a fibreglass or plastic molded round thing from the 60's in garish colors, connected together bench-like, perhaps with a TV on an arm. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The first draft was quite incoherent but I found no difficulty in finding sources for this topic. As I have rewritten the article from these, the above opinions are now obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, while I've got no actual access to any of those books (did you find them online? If so, include the URL) I do notice they're all entries from single pages. Exactly how much coverage did each book provide? Ironholds (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty weighty claim on the above votes. If they want to change their opinion they can (I can see one already has).--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A few facts on airport design that, while somewhat interesting, are in no way connected enough or establish enough notability to deserve their own article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Airport terminal and merge content relevant to that article (e.g. fire safety paragraph). --Pnm (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with Airport terminal. I'll AGF on the Colonel's sources, but I think it would be best to make this a section in the broader article rather than a stand alone article. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron. Snotty Wong   prattle 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this basket of sentences. This article in no way represents an encyclopedia article.  Yes, we all know that airports have chairs, and I'm sure we can find sources which can corroborate that fact.  Airports have a lot of other things too, but we don't have articles on them either.  Airport lights, Airport grass, Airport escalators, Airport dust, Airport carpet.  Just because sources exist doesn't mean that something is notable.  It may be appropriate to merge/redirect to Airport terminal or Chair, but even that seems tenuous at best.  Snotty Wong   prattle 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommended a redirect for Airport chair because I thought it was necessary to preserve attribution in case of a merge. If there's another way to do that, or I'm misinformed, by all means it should be merged and deleted. --Pnm (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of work done to this. People often complain about uncomfortable airport chairs.  That surely a serious concern in airport design.   D r e a m Focus  01:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * People also complain about sitting next to crying infants, tight legroom, in-flight movies being dumb, etc. I really don't see how people complaining makes something encyclopedic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not at all the same article that was nominated, thanks to Colonel Warden's work. As a followup to the discussion above, I think it's fair to say that all changes in design are a response to the complaints of society.  Mandsford 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is well documented and interesting. Perhaps it could be merged into Airport terminal, but I am content with a separate article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge into Airport terminal. Nothing notable about seating at airports. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Wall Street Journal saw the topic as worthy of a stand-alone article . This article already does that one better by including sourced material about the personal space and fire safety issues. Novickas (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has been improved, topic was always notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.