Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seat configurations of the Airbus A380

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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seat configurations of the Airbus A380

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

This is a redundant list as information is given in the respective airline articles. It can be noted at Airbus A380 that there are seat layouts with higher or lower density, but such a seperate, confusing list is just not needed. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC) edit: Furthermore, there is a nearly infinite number of possible seat configs, therefore this list is never-endable. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There would appear to be enough editors who care about this to keep this page encyclopedically referenced and updated enough to be useful. I see a steady set of edits since 2008. For that matter, there's a likely argument that a series of pages like Seat configurations of the Douglas DC-9 would usefully collect and centralize information that would otherwise be splattered over a whole lot of individual airline pages. (That's the argument that pulled Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens out of Mongolian passport, with a long set of edit wars and reverts resulting in a so far mostly fruitful conclusion on Talk:Passport. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per Ed Vielmetti. smithers - talk 02:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable or encyclopedic and this not a travel guide - better suited to a fan boy website like http://plane.spottingworld.com/ or http://wikitravel.org/ MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Airbus A380. Seat configurations do not pass WP:N, and it doesn't seem to warrant its own article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons including per MilborneOne's and Per aspera ad Astra's arguments. The article is an orphan, a grand total of three articles link to this, of which two are "see alsos" (with one of those being added since this debate was opened). The "steady set of edits since 2008" total nine, of which four are just clean-ups (format/spelling etc.), one gives us the row layout for Air France (and should be treated with suspicion - how can there be nine seats in a 1-2-1 layout, 343 seats in a 3-4-3 layout, 80 seats in a 2-2-2 layout, or 106 seats in a 2-4-2 layout?) and one informs us that Malaysia Airlines' seating config is "To Be Advised"; in other words no substantive changes to the article since 2008, it is inaccurate and well out of date now (no mention of Air Austral and its two all-economy aircraft ordered) and is not really being edited to improve it. As for Edward Vielmetti's suggestion that each aircraft type should have an article like this, I agree, in that we should either have a seating article for all types, or have none at all - and favour none at all. Stating the obvious now, within the constraints of the design it is the airline that chooses the seating configuration, not the aircraft manufacturer, and if one wants to find out the seating config of an airline's aircraft surely s/he would go to the airline article or the airline's own website. It wouldn't have occurred to me to go looking for a WP article of this nature to find out this information for any aircraft type. Imagine trying to do an article like this for the DC-9, A320 or 737; the seating article would be impossible to maintain and would end up bigger than the aircraft type article. Perhaps we should have List of Boeing 737-800 operators that choose a 180-seat configuration, List of Boeing 737-800 operators that choose a 174-seat configuration and so on - and please don't even Think about running that up the flagpole as a sensible or viable suggestion. YSSYguy (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- maintainable, notable, referenced, what is not to like. Above argument is contradictory: "article is an orphan, a grand total of three articles link to this". Last time I checked linking to an article makes it not an orphan. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reading through the deletion arguments, I don't see the problem:
- What's confusing about it? Can't that be fixed through editing?
- That the same information can be found scattered across several articles doesn't mean that a list that collates related information into one article is "redundant".
- The article isn't about possible seat configurations, it's about ones actually used by airlines flying the A380, meaning it has about 15 entries. It might eventually have, good heavens, a few dozen entries.
- Merging into Airbus A380 isn't viable, as that article is quite lengthy as it is. A brief mention of the range of layouts in that article, with a link to this "main" article on A380 seat configs is consistent with our organizational style.
- "Not notable/not encyclopedic/not a travel guide" -- I don't see it. This is concrete information about how the various airlines have outfitted their A380s, and it appears to be well-sourced. List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries strikes me as more fanboyish than this list -- though since it's appropriately sourced and organized, I wouldn't think of deleting it either. I did at one point move the production list of A380s to PlaneSpottingWorld, since its sourcing was very sketchy. I wouldn't say the same about this article -- the sourcing could be improved, but it looks like it can be completely reliably sourced.
- "Out of date/inaccurate" -- unless it's impossible to correct the information, that is never a reason to delete an article.
- Other aircraft don't have seating config articles -- WP:WAX. That we don't have an article on something doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on something.
--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A subject covered in the popular media. Surely covered by specialist interest groups. Needs editing of course. The table is too wide. Is too focused no NOW, ie is not written to be timeless, but this will improve by itself with time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per MilborneOne and YSSYGuy. This article is non-notable. The notable fact about A380 seating configurations is that the aircraft can seat so many people. That is covered in the root A380 article. Whether or not the passengers sit 2 abreast or three abreast is not notable. If someone needs information like that, they visit a site the specializes in that, like Seat Guru. Not Wikipedia. Would the article need to cover every possible configuration of the aircraft? What about special cases where they remove a seat or two for some reason, does that need to be included? Just because you can list something doesn't mean you should. What about List of Airbus A380 seat fabric options? I don't think that article would be any more notable than this. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A devil's advocate response to DGG: What about List of Airbus A380 food options, or List of Airbus A380's with WiFi, or List of Airbus A380 ticket prices? Those are all things people care about (and definitely more so than my seat fabric example), but they're not appropriate for Wikipedia. The people who are interested in the seating arrangements of the aircraft will find that information in the places they are looking for it, such as a specialized site like SeatGuru or the airline's website where they are buying their ticket from! Finally, the List of Airbus A380 routes was deleted for just this reason; Wikipedia isn't the place for this type of information. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some degree of detailed coverage for topics of this sort is appropriate, & I think this is about right. Most people care much more about how many seats are in a row than in the color of the upholstery. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is complete invention! Do you have sources? Abductive (reasoning) 19:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Modify.I created this article to keep the A380 article free of details and to put the references in a "visual" form, as there was some controversial "discussion" on this (on the A380 article). But I think too, that the information goes too far for a WP article. I think it could be changed to "List of Airbus A380 operators" (as the List of Boeing 747 operators, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_747_operators) taking this from the List of A380 orders and deliveries and include 4 columns for passenger counts in First, Business, Economy plus and Economy class. One specific characteristic of the A380 is the flexibility on this topic, but the details should be let for other sites. Cirrocumulus (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good approach to me.--Father Goose (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Can somebody explain to me how this isn't completely redundant to the Airbus A380 article? The Airbus A380 article even has the same images. Abductive (reasoning) 00:29, 4 February 2010 (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.