Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaplin's Patent Distilling Apparatus with Steam Pump


 * 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Chaplin&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a pretty well-written article; however, I tried Googling for information on this topic in several ways and couldn't really find anything (Googling for "chaplin distiller" comes back only to this article). Speaking of that, the article was created by User:Chaplindistiller.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a Master Student at University. I am working on this wiki page as an assignment with a partner. I have no connection with the company, just created the username to do the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaplindistiller (talk • contribs) 04:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't what Wikipedia is for, I'm afraid. Please read WP:NOT PAPERS.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The project is not designed to be a paper and is not a paper. It will contribute to the pool of Maritime Archaeology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaplindistiller (talk • contribs) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There are good sources used in the article and I'm aware that distillers were common on mid-19th century ships. The google test is not a valid reason for deletion. Brad (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Take a close look at those sources, and you may be surprised to find that they do not say much to establish the notability of this device. See my Weak Delete Smerge !vote below, changed from a Keep !vote after I checked the references. The appearance of an article being "well referenced" can be deceiving. Edison (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Just because it doesn't have many google hits doesn't mean it isn't notable. It appears to cite a solid number of reliable sources, and unless there is something wrong that I'm not seeing it probably passes the WP:GNG. Although Wikipedia is not an ideal setup to write papers with, there are tons of classes that use Wikipedia for some form of assignment and there is nothing wrong with that - the WP:USPP encourages such and is explicitly endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. (Also, the link you provided to WP:NOT PAPERS doesn't actually deal with this.. it just says WP is not a place to post OR or technical papers - and this doesn't appear to be one.)

Chaplin - you'll want to keep WP:NOR and specifically WP:SYNTH in mind while writing this. Wikipedia has very different rules about original synthesis than you will have encountered elsewhere in your academic career. If you have any questions or need any help, feel free to contact me via my talkpage or any of these folks -- WP:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Online_Ambassadors Kevin (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and guidance... Chaplin —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep This sort of article is what an encyclopedia is for, and the once notable, always notable principle specifically protects topics that have long been forgotten and are not otherwise covered on the internet. There is ample material in the article to establish notability of this particular device, and the subject of distillation of water for drinking is of obvious importance. Just because we use other methods today does not mean that nobody is intersted in earlier technology. AJHingston (talk)


 * Keep -- This is exactly the kind of AfD that puts off new editors from contributing. Rather than trying to improve the article, someone slapped FOUR tags on it (wikify, deadend, orphan, uncat) within 5 hours of creation, and in just under a day it was already under threat of deletion. For the notability of 18th/19th century technology, Google is unlikely to be a good barometer -- most of the information will be in off-line paper resources. There seem to be plenty of them here. I see no harm in a WP article being produced on the back of student research if it can be referenced appropriately, which certainly seems the case here. Give the guy a chance! -- EdJogg (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I stand by what I have written here; however, my keep vote is based on the assumption that this has been written as a scholarly article, and the reason for the AfD is 'lack of google hits'. If, as seems quite possible, Edison's research is correct and the article is actually a smokescreen based on a pile of false premises, then the article should be deleted as unverifiable. (It's not that I don't believe Edison, just that I have no means of confirming his findings.)* -- EdJogg (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)      * nor the time to spare... -- EdJogg (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Click on the 2000 book by the scholar of the wreck, McCarthy, which does not mention the company. Click on the 1890 NY Times article. which does not mention the company. I listed the refs I was able to access, and noted discrepancies between what was claimed and what is verifiable. There might in fact be someone at some museum who found a brass Chaplin nameplate, but I could not find such a ref in the article, and even if there were, being a gadget on a shipwreck does not confer automatic notability. (The "Grupsen Patent Rotary Pencil Sharpener" was found on the wreck of the SS Hesperus, so it deserves a Wikipedia article). Edison (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.


 * Keep, because "I like it" and "It's interesting" are sometimes enough. This is a back office product if there ever was one, an apparatus from the age of steam that apparently allowed the use of sea water in steam engines.  The article is neutrally written, the references confirm its existence, and unlike most other articles about back office tech there is nary a whiff of commercial conflict of interest nor the possibility that this article is being used for search engine manipulation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No, "I like it" and "It's interesting" are the very sorts of arguments the closing admin should ignore. I liked the famous hoax article on the Upper Peninsula War, and it was very interesting, and also had lots of references, but it was properly deleted. Fans of many things like articles about trivia in video games, and articles based on catalog listings of celphones, but many of those get deleted if they lack multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're claiming this is a WP:HOAX? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to believe it is a pure hoax. The one page catalog from some unidentified magazine implies that the Chaplin company sold distillers. If the "Jones Company" sold patented door closers, and one was used on the Titanic, would that justify a similarly slimly referenced article about the "Jones Patent Pneumatic Door Closer?" I don't think so. I have found enthusiastic misrepresentation of what references said, about the prominence of the company, as well as numerous unreferenced claims. I question verifiability and notability, in claims that this one gadget was the be-all and end-all of getting fresh water on board ships in the 19th century. Some ships probably had them, other ships probably had the gadgets of competitors. This is not so different from an article about a particular random celphone model, referenced to the company's catalog. Edison (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or (See delete Smerge !vote below) move to a general article about steam distillation of salt water to provide fresh water on ships. Wikipedia does not have an article such as the latter. The limited supply of fresh water on navy ships was a big issue in the 20th century, long after the era when this company flourished, and likely there were other suppliers of steam distillers. It was highly fuel intensive to distill seawater and produce fresh water (one gallon of fuel for one gallon of water in the old days), and the process was an important one, to reduce the amount of water carried for drinking and washing. The article could use some cleanup, but that is not a ground for deletion. Edison (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and a very big trout to the nominator. Bitey, clueless and thoroughly discouraging to new editors. 8-(  Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete ((See Smerge !vote below).Problems with notability and verifiability of statements. I have checked some of the references and find that they were misrepresented to exaggerate notability. The lede cites present ref 1, the London Gazette of 1865 as supporting the company being "an important and highly regarded engineering and manufacturing syndicate." All that brief directory listing actually says is that the company patented some unspecified "improvement to steam boilers." The New York Times of 1890 was cited (before I edited it) in present ref 8, as saying that in 1890 the US Navy was considering placing "a similar distilling apparatus" on two US ships. The brief editorial does not give any description whatever of the type of distilling apparatus being considered, so it was improper to say it was "similar" any more that it would be to state that the latest US aircraft carrier has "similar" apparatus on board. The lede has present ref 2 stating that a Chaplin distiller was found on the wreck of the Xantho, but ref 2, the Western Australia Museum site makes no mention of a Chaplin or any other distiller. An unpublished PhD thesis and other writings by M. McCarthy (refs 21-26) may substantiate the claim that this one ship had one such apparatus on board, but that is really not evidence of notability. It is one researcher (McCarthy) who wrote a lot about one shipwreck. In his 2000 book  he does not call the gadget in question a "Chaplin distiller" but rather a condenser which condensed steam back into feedwater for the boiler, rather than distilling seawater. The Wikipedia article has no ref at present to support the assertion that a nameplate was found on the device proving it to be a Chaplin distiller, as the article claims. Some here are impressed by the sheer number of references, but we must consider their quality. Six refs are to the company's own catalog, apparently a one page ad which certainly cannot establish notability. Four refs are to the the 1878 Britannica, but what significant coverage does it actually give to this particular device? It is not readily accessed in libraries and does not seem to be online, but if it is public domain it could be copied to the discussion page of this AFD. It would count toward notability as one ref if it does have significant coverage of the device. Wikipedia is not a catalog of every device ever carried on a ship. The Xantho doubtless had dozens of gadgets on board, and the Titanic had thousands of devices on board. They do not all need standalone encyclopedia articles. We should not confuse enthusiasm with notability. Edison (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Condensers, air pumps, evaporators and distillers are not the same thing at all. Although an encrusted evaporator and distiller would be hard to distinguish, a condenser or its air pump would be, even as they came off the wreck. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Changing my vote to keep and rename, per post below - per Edison. I've done enough reading on the topic of 19th century ships to know that distilling apparatus were quite common, but singling out one particular manufacturer, and for one particular product, without evidence that this product was significantly notable in its own right is obviously problematic. Adding to Edison's concerns, take a look at the paragraph which states that Chaplin distillers were also used in land settings. During the Sudanese wars (1881–1885), (1896–1899), British forces used the distillers to supply their soldiers with fresh drinking water in Suakin and Sudan. This supply of fresh drinking water was of utmost importance in the 1882 Anglo-Egyptian War. These distillers were on a much larger scale, distilling some 12,000 gallons of water per hour. It is sourced to the Scientific American ref, here, but that article doesn't even mention a Chaplin distillation apparatus. So it looks as if serious misrepresentation of sources is going on here. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Smerge Selectively merge to Distilled water, while also mentioning the competing distillers from Dr. Normandy, and the 2 French companies mentioned in the old Britannica. Post-1878 references could also be used to provide info on marine distillation. I finally found the 1878 Britannica, volume v11, pages 263-264 online. The download is quirky and slow. That article has significant coverage of the Chaplin Company's distiller, so there is one good ref. But several other manufacturers are also covered, and it is just a small part of the article on "Distillation" subsection "Distillation of water" in the 1878 Britannica. Notability seems insufficient. Much of the referenced content of this article deals with the distillation of water in general, even if the refs were cited in a way which made it appear they were all specifically about this one company, and the Britannica article does not say this company was the only one in the business in the 1870's. The "Distilled water" article could use more on the history of the process used to make it, and why it became important in the 19th century in shipping. Another target article would be Desalination which presently only talks about state of the art methods of getting fresh water from saltwater, with no history section.Edison (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice find. That does at least establish that the company produced a notable product. I'm reconsidering my !vote, but whatever happens to this article, the problem remains that it contains many false and exaggerated claims as well as irrelevancies that need to be dealt with. In the meantime I'll do another google search to see if I can find out any more about the company. Gatoclass (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename - to either Alex Chaplin & Co. or Cranstonhill Engine Works. It seems clear from a google search that this was a significant engineering company, that in fact survived into the 20th century. The company produced not only distillation equipment, but cranes, housing, steamboats, and a host of other equipment. There appears to be plenty of scope for expansion of this article under either of the names proposed above, per this search page on google books. Gatoclass (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly this isn't a good article. If it's really MSc standard, when it's clearly failing WP's quality standards, then it seems that for once we're being pickier than our usual pokemon articles. It's vague, makes greatly over-extended claims given the sources shown, and (most importantly) doesn't have as strong an editorial narrative as it ought. Chaplin's evaporators had no monopoly on the technology, but that seems to be the implication here. If they had any particular innovation or precedence, I'm as yet unaware of it. I wrote a quick draft of Evaporator (marine) yesterday to give a technical overview of them - although I can't find two essential later refs on my bookshelves, so it runs out of steam a bit after WW1.
 * I'd like to see an article on Alex Chaplin & Co., but I think that's a separate article. We already have G & J Weir, and that needs historical expansion work too. That isn't this article though and I don't think the criticisms of this are anywhere near strong enough to delete or merge it away. I would actually like this article to become more specific. Rather than focussing on Chaplins, certainly rather than portraying Chaplins as the source of all evaporators, I'd like to see the scope of this article be honest about its sources and be more obviously tied to the particular archaeological artefact of the evaporator recovered from the Xantho. This is a narrow scope (and quite wrongly, that causes some editors to seek deletion on that basis alone), but it's also a scope that's interesting enough to support articles. I would really like to see Xantho articles on the engine, and on the de-concretion of the engine. There's one very well known web page on that topic already and we could benefit from a description of that process as an experiment in conservation techniques. The engine is an important single artefact, the techniques developed on it were both useful and effective, but also highlight the difficulties of developing experimental conservation techniques through their application on such rare items. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I might be able to support an article on the Xantho distiller in particular as described by you above, but that's not a reason for retaining an article on the product in general, so I'm not sure where this leaves us. Nice work on the evaporator article however. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep assuming on good faith that the offline references check out as asserting notability. And trout the editor who thought that the creator's username indicated a promotional account, when the company has been out of business for decades. (The focus of the article could be tweaked - whether more specific, to the Xantho distiller, or less specific, to the company.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fairly written and well sourced. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2011 (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.