Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkeys in ships (2nd nomination)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Pet monkey (formerly Monkeys in ships)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopaedic article, pretty ridiculous title Jack (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete And if you think this title is ridiculous, it was originally called "Sailor Monkey", and then there was someone who thought that "Monkeys on ships" would sound more intelligent if it was called "Monkeys in ships" (it didn't). The page survived deletion three years ago, apparently because it was considered to be as fun as a barrel of... anyway, it hasn't gone from fun to encyclopedic.  An article can be well-sourced and entertaining.  In this case it's neither of those things.  Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The article is now about monkeys as pets, rather than monkeys in ships. Since this isn't the same article that I voted to delete a couple of days ago, I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article about monkeys as pets.  The admin want to do one of those relisted thingies rather than making a ruling. Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (regretfully) - one day someone will write the definitive article about pets on board ships, to include parrots, sloths, Pottos, wombats etc., but this isn't it. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Enough monkeying around. Lets  drink  Tea  23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Pretty ridiculous nomination. To see what can be made of such a topic, please see Crushing by elephant.  It's a Featured Article.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike the elephants, the monkeys apparently did not have official government duties. Not these monkeys, anyway. WillOakland (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been bold and rendered the discussion moot by moving the article to the title Pet monkey which is a more general topic which we do not yet seem to cover. This seems a reasonable home for this content while allowing us to expand in related directions. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (even with the renaming) as the sources do not support this as any kind of broad phenomenon. Warden can create an article about another subject if he wants.WillOakland (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Under the new title, we can easily see numerous sources. These indicate that there is often a nautical connection but we no longer have to confine ourself to this and can observe that Frederick the Great had a pet monkey, say. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a far better use of the article, a problem I can see however is the title. Maybe it should be pet simian as "monkey" generally excludes apes (and therefore poor little Bubbles (chimpanzee)). Jack (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I originally found the article title humorous, but upon further review I discovered there are multiple sources listed on the talk page, and Google Books reveals many more: Anecdotes of Monkeys by William Stewart Rose, Singular Creatures, and how They Were Found by George Cupples, et al, Four Hundred Animal Stories by Robert Cochrane, Anecdotes of a Life on the Ocean by David Cowans, et al, etc. This is an interesting slice of history which could definitely be improved to a respectable article (the fact that no one has yet done so, while not probative, might have more to do with the current title&mdash;I'd recommend "Shipboard monkeys" or "Ship's monkey"). This article reflects the spirit of Wikipedia, and should be preserved (again) rather than deleted as "unencylopedic". –  7 4   14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would propose to close this AfD for mootness, because the nominated title has now been made into a redirect.  Apparently what was once on this page has been redirected or merged to an article on Pet monkey, and the AfD header has been added to that title.  "Pet monkey" (I'd prefer monkeys as pets for the title, myself) is an easily article-worthy subject; we have articles or sections about snakes as pets, ferrets, and so forth.  Monkeys as pets have indeed been the subject of a minor American-style moral panic, complete with proposed legislation that would ban all primates as pets in the United States, as a result of the misadventures of Travis the chimpanzee. So you've got potential multiple "reliable" sources on the subject now as well.  (You wonder whether our iggorant Congresspipples are even aware of how broad a brush they're using.)  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This material should be kept in some form. I too prefer monkeys as pets but Pet monkey seems more standard for Wikipedia naming conventions. — Reinyday, 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if renaming per conventions needs to take place then so be it. Article has been renamed and broadened to rest the original article in a historical perspective and there is plenty of notability of pet monkeys and sourcing to document this. Hopefully those who simply love the cuties will choose to work on and expand this appropriately. -- Banj e  b oi   22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No proper reliable sources support the article.--Sloane (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Here's a few that might help out of 500 searchable books with the phrase "his pet monkey", Here's another 300 using trained "pet monkey" and here's a few dozen news search possibilities. -- Banj e  b oi   12:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the now expanded and sourced article and discuss renaming on the article's talk page.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per pet monkey suggestions rdunn  PLIB  10:31, 12 March 2009 (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.