- 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. Sandstein 10:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The portable monkey
- The portable monkey ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article that hinges on trivial mentions in a letter to the editor and an encyclopedia entry, both from the 19th century.
The portable monkey actually seems to be have been machine for hammering stones into mortar or gravel, or something of that nature, but the cited sources and the few more that I can find on GBooks don't explain how the device worked or who invented it and when (maybe Francis Maceroni invented it, or he invented a railroad version of it--the sources aren't clear). Maybe transwiki to Wiktionary? QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The article does not explain what The Portable Monkey was with enough clarity, and the references given do not contain a clear description. A Google search doesn't turn up much. Unless a much better reference is found, I'm afraid there isn't enough here, or even the promise of anything, on which to base an encyclopedia article; not even a stub. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment I thought the subject would just be of interest to a specialist in engineering or construction. In retrospect, the information could easily be integrated into another article, I didn't find much on the subject during the creation, since the thing seems to be some-what archiac and of minor significance (i'm no authority in this area though), i'm thinking there isn't much hope of improving the article, or future for it.Thanks Whalestate ( talk) 16:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete It isn't befitting an encyclopedia to have an article whose primary description of its topic is "something of a mechanical nature". That's even before we get to the question of notability. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 03:07, 27 April 2015 (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.