Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baggage claim

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The result was Withdrawn per sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baggage claim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Stubby, unsourced dicdef. Doubt this can be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is about baggage claim areas in airports, which seems like a notable topic to me. It is not about the expression "baggage claim" or about the act of claiming baggage, which would be a problem with the not a dictionary policy. Sources are needed of course but no reason to delete. Borock (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying it "seems like" it can be expanded means nothing. Saying "it just needs sources" means nothing until you prove that sources exist. I looked already and found nothing that would constitute a source. Your argument is completely null and void. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's a possible source: Innovations for airport terminal facilities. Here's another one: Airport passenger-related processing rates guidebook. And another: Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design. And another: The modern airport terminal: new approaches to airport architecture. Each of these sources discusses the topic between six and eleven times, often in great detail. The topic is notable, and there are many reliable sources that discuss it in depth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (After edit conflict with comments by Cullen328 above:) TPH, what happened when you looked in Google Books? Did you find sources such as
  • Airport engineering By Norman Ashford, Paul H. Wright. p. 316
  • The modern airport terminal: new approaches to airport architecture By Brian Edwards. p. 116
  • Planning and Design of Airports, Fifth Edition By Robert Horonjeff, Francis McKelvey, William Sproule. p. 412.
• And in Google Scholar did you find such sources as
  • "Baggage Claim Area Congestion at Airports: An Empirical Model of Mechanized Claim Device Performance", Atef Ghobrial, Carlos F. Daganzo, Tarif Kazimi, in Transportation Science Vol. 16, No. 2, May 1982, pp. 246-260
  • "Maximum Inventories in Baggage Claim: A Double Ended Queuing System", James J. Browne, James J. Kelly, Philippe Le Bourgeois, in Transportation Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, February 1970, pp. 64-78
  • "The use of queueing models in design of baggage claim areas at airports", WA Barbo, in Transportation Research Board, 1967.
• If you found such sources, did you consider adding them to the article? If not, was there a particular reason you dismissed them? It would be helpful if you were more explicit in your nomination statements. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The first two pages of hits I found were all false positives (several novels with that name), or tangential mentions (e.g. "To receive at said Union Depot for transportation all baggage to which there is attached together the first and middle stubs of such baggage claim check, and on the receipt of such baggage to remove such middle stub from such baggage ..") Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do a Google Books and Google Scholar search, or simply a straight Google search? Simple Google searches usually produce gigantic amounts of chaff, with very little wheat. Our AfD tool bar linked above every debate give us far more powerful search tools that allow us to refine and disambiguate our searches in a matter of seconds. Simply adding "airport" to the search eliminates bus and train references. Why take a look at blog and social networking crap when Google will hand you far higher quality sources for the asking? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did Google Books. The first two pages of Gbooks gave me nothing but crap. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:25, 10 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.