Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church chairs


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Church chairs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No sources, no evidence of notability, seems to be original research. Some passages can be found verbatim on other websites (e.g. http://tensilegroup.net/products_nuts.htm) so there are likely to be copyright issues too. PROD was removed by the author: PROD reason was "Does not fit notability guidelines. No reputable sources." JamesBWatson (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per WP:OR, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Article not only fails WP:N, but also WP:V and WP:OR.  D u s t i *poke* 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I added prod to this with the reason "Does not fit notability guidelines. No reputable sources".  Also fails with WP:ORIGINAL, WP:V, and WP:IRS.  There might even be a Conflict of Interest, when the author removed my prod he gave the reason "Made changes to add to the verifiability as I am the author of the research of CFMA".  Bluefist talk 00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article appears to be original research and also fails notability. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 08:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 15:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Conflicted delete - the admin in me sees an essay filled withoriginal research, lacking references and written in a bizarre tone, but the jokester in me is insistant that an article with phrase "Joshua Gabrielson of CFMA conducted research across a five year period and found that out of the 342,000 plus churches about 46% of churches today have chairs in their facilities," is somehow worth keeping around. Oh well. l'aquatique  [talk]  20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm inclined to say that the topic is perhaps worth an article, as 'church chairs' do differ from the chairs found in restaurants, parish halls, scout huts and other places where movable seating is required. The lockability is a valuable feature, and the addition of the book etc holders, together with the extra width necessitated by the lockability also differentiate the church chair. (If they're locked together, there's no room for overhang; this is probably why the lockable chairs in my doctor's waiting room are carefully spaced several inches apart...). I'm not a notable frequenter of churches (weddings, funerals, and possibly to see what they do with something of mine...), but pews seem still 'in' here in the UK. I have no cause to visit the charismatic, pentecostal and other such modern outfits, so I couldn't say what they sit on. This article, however, is probably not the one. It would take a complete rewrite and quite some researching to provide neutral and reliable sources. (As usual, I'm not volunteering.) Peridon (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only church I've ever been in that didn't have pews just had normal folding chairs - but your comment makes me wonder if there isn't something from this article we could salvage and merge into Pews? I've been watching this page and I believe that at one point it did have some references. Just a thought. l'aquatique  [talk]  23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apart from everything else that has been pointed out above I must point out how ludicrously precise this article is. Are we supposed to believe that there are world-wide standards for the dimensions, steel gauge, plywood thickness and other characteristics of "church chairs"? And that those standards are measured in inches, which the vast majority of the world doesn't use? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 3 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.