Captain's chair: As far as I can see, whilst there are plenty of references to a "captain's chair" there doesn't appear to be any general acceptance of what it is beyond being a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in.  May the sources exist but I can't find them - if nobody else can, I suggest WP:TNT until someone can find sources to write a coherent and sourced page.  JMWt ( talk ) 10:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don't see why it should have its own article (see WP:NOTDICT ).  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As the text makes clear, I think, a Captain's Chair isn't "a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in", but a specific type of chair of the general Windsor type, though larger and often more ornate.   The term is standardly used in the furniture and antiques trade.   I hadn't realised that footnotes were necessary for a Wikipedia article (I'm still unclear as to why, if references are provided at the end).   If a dictionary definition isn't sufficient to verify the meaning of a term, I'm not sure what is.. .   The ebay reference indicates the fact that the term is standardly used — there are many other antiques and furniture sites that confirm this, but I thought that just one would suffice (especially as it includes a reasonably good account of the type).  "until someone can find sources to write a coherent and sourced page".   If you could point out any incoherencies, I can attempt to rectify them.   If the dictionary definition and relevant commercial sites don't count as adequate sources, could you let me know what sort of sources would count, and I can see what I can do.  The page was, peculiarly, a redirect to an article on a piece of exercise equipment, which is certainly not the primary use of the term.   Indeed, of the three uses, this one is most common, followed by ""a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in", followed as a distant third by the exercise equipment.  Bibliosporias ( talk ) 11:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just writing things does not make them true.  If you don't understand the importance of WP:V , you have no business writing text in mainspace JMWt ( talk ) 12:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm struggling to see where I said or even implied that writing something makes it true.   As with the article itself (a first attempt by an inexperienced editor -- thanks for the encouragement, by the way), you seem not to be reading very carefully, but instead reacting rather emotionally.  Bibliosporias ( talk ) 20:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You said quote " As the text makes clear, I think, a Captain's Chair isn't "a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in", but a specific type of chair of the general Windsor type, though larger and often more ornate." unquote.  As the text makes clear is literally making a the text of a page, that you wrote, a reason for keeping it.  That's not how it works here.  Everything claimed here must be verified by citations to Reliable Sources, that's a fundamental basis of Wikipedia.  We don't just make claims and think that by writing them down they become true.  There are plenty of guides and help for writing pages, perhaps you should read them.  JMWt ( talk ) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with Windsor Chair .  This [23] at 167 has a brief discussion of the Captain's chair.   And this [24] has a nice description of the chair (but not a picture).  I'm puzzled by the deletion rationale.  Reading the article, it's clear it's not describing a chair for captains for vessels.  Captain's Chair, BTW, is certainly a name for a piece of gym equipment used for for leg raises, or a leg raise exercise.  Not sure if it's more common or less common, but it came up immediately when I searched.  Oblivy ( talk ) 12:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your source 1 is not just brief , it's a passing sentence without a other detail whatsoever.  The second simply says that it is another name for a Windsor chair.  I don't understand how you think this is substantial coverage in Reliable Sources to satisfy the WP:GNG nor how this is in any sense a rationale for ! keep rather than a redirect somewhere else. .  JMWt ( talk ) 12:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fair.   I guess I was trying to be helpful in providing additional sources rather than claiming I'd found the key to overcome GNG objections, and at some point "comment" became "keep".   This [25] is more substantial but I'm not logged in so I can't see if it goes beyond a single page).  It's an extremely common category of chair, often found in pubs and libraries, probably because it's more sturdy than a spindle-back Windsor.  I know that's very WP:ILIKEIT but I think common sense doesn't call for deletion even if we can't find an essay-length description.  Oblivy ( talk ) 13:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well that's how we assess notability on en.wiki.  If there are no RS we can use for verification per WP:V the uncited information can be removed.  If none of the content reflects published information, we delete the page.  That's literally how it works.  JMWt ( talk ) 14:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As true as that is, it's also policy that policies and guidelines should be ignored if they prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.  I made my vote, I think I'll stand by it.  Oblivy ( talk ) 14:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A DICDEF, with no other sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd never thought of EBay as being a dictionary.   I could have provided similar references to other dictionaries, like Chesterfield, but I don't suppose that that would have helped.  Bibliosporias ( talk ) 20:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:DICDEF is a policy of en.wikipedia which states that wikipedia is not a dictionary .  Referencing other dictionaries is not going to help if there is nothing to say on the page beyond a dictionary definition.  And if there are no sources that go into further depth that can be found, we can't include additional unsourced material.  JMWt ( talk ) 04:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Chair#Types of chairs or Windsor chair .  Dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and Collins define it by its construction, so it is a thing, but there doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a standalone article.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I noted above, merge is a viable alternative to keep.  May I ask if there's some reason not to merge into Windsor chair instead?  It would fit better in the more specific article - as it is, there's no discussion of spindle-back chairs in the chair article now and this is a subtype.  Oblivy ( talk ) 09:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because none of the dictionary definitions mention its connection to a Windsor.  However, I've modified my lvote.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge with Windsor chair .  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:35, 26 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge