Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 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 Non-admin closure. There's a consensus that the article should be kept in some way, but that it shouldn't be at The Chair. I have moved that article to The Chair (Grand National) and turned The Chair into a dab, which is a move supported by this AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chair[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources. Term is too vague for a redirect.

Convert to disambiguation to prevent the ugly-ass triple hatnote at the top. There should be no reason to have THREE hatnotes on one article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename or merge. It is not vague. It is very clear what this article is about. I am not a racing man, but I would have thought there would be reliable sources for information about one of the most famous fences in one of the most notable house races in the world. But then it should indeed be renamed to perhaps the Chair fence. If there are insufficient sources some of the material should be merged to Grand National. The present title should indeed be a disambiguation page. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Chair (disambiguation)- hmm. This was tough one. I can find plenty of mentions in things like Google Books, but these are all passing mentions. But I agree with TPH that the three hatnotes are unseemly and IMO it is ridiculous that this minor aspect of a horse racing course should be the primary topic for the title "The Chair". This topic should be covered in a paragraph or two at the Grand National article, so ordinarily I would suggest a merge. The problem is that the current contents are sourceless and, I suspect, heavy with original research and so there's nothing to be done with it. There's no point in merging bad content and then scrambling around looking for proper sources for it, when you can use the same sources to write it properly at the right place from scratch. Reyk _YO! 04:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the status quo. I'm not sure how much of this information qualifies as encyclopaedic, and I'll bow to the expertise of horse racing experts. However, I don't see why a jump on a race course, however notable, should take precedence over the three other listed meanings of "The Chair". At the very least, this should be moved and this page made into a disambiguation page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Convert to DAB. This material belongs in the course section on the Grand National. Material about "The Chair" is related to a breakdown of the course such as this which does establish that it can be sourced so deletion is not helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprised that anyone can seriously doubt the notability of this article. There are only two horse-racing jumps I could even attempt to name individually: both at Aintree and this is one. Anything other than notability just isn't an issue for AfD.

As to naming, then clearly there ought to be The Chair (disambiguation), but precedence over a song and a game show isn't hard, so I don't see any need for a rename to The Chair (Grand National) (wouldn't object to it though). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grand National. It's one aspect of that race, would fit well into a section there and is unlikely to grow much larger given the apparent sourcing level. Sandstein 06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If merged into Grand National, would you prune this article down, or would you risk WP:UNDUE? In terms of logical structure I would support the merge you describe, but not in terms of balancing the size of articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, per WP:V, only verifiable material should be merged. That should reduce the size of the merged content. And it can always be editorially shortened after a merger, given consensus. Sandstein 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but maybe rename and create a dab page (which is an editing decision, not a deletion decision). I can find sources (listed below) to verify almost all of the content and will add it in a minute. Bigger digger (talk) 21:04, 23 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.