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 of the debate was I can't believe this, but it's a...keep. Johnleemk | Talk 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what to do with this. merge it somewhere, or just delete it? its not very encyclopedic. BL kiss the lizard 00:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD discussion

Please do not remove votes from AfD pages. The following four votes were removed by User:213.202.181.5:

• Speedy Delete. Patent nonsense. --Aaron 01:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since it's only a sentence I move to just delete it completely. Phaldo 01:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not quite patent nonsense, but not worth an article either. If anyone wishes they could capture this at British Navy or some such article. Johntex\^talk 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would someone interested in monkeys find it there? Kappa 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be verified -- Astrokey44|talk 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, why shouldn't wikipedia users be given access to this interesting information? Kappa 02:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrr!!! BD2412 T 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A classic. Zoe\^talk 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It can be verified-- Astrokey44|talk 05:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Used in fiction: [Willis the Pilot by Johnna Spyri] Other mention: "After joining the Navy and before being assigned to his first sub, the sailor adopted a tiny monkey as a pet."[1] and finally the wikipedia article anout the monkey hanger legend also mentions this as practice. Englishrose 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are various references on the talk page. Kappa 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, change my vote to keep then -- Astrokey44|talk 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, Important monkey related history. Englishrose 08:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrr!!!, per BD2412. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• not sure what to do with it says the nomination.....tell ya what, just leave it alone! keep (possibly rename to something a little less clumsy, but dont ask me what!) Jcuk 10:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Fantastic. --popcorn26 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) This appears to be the second vote in this AfD by User:213.202.181.5. Robin Johnson 15:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as references by Englishrose and the ones on the talk page are included in a reference section in the article. Interesting enough for its own entry. Would feel out of place in a general naval article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We shouldn't be whitewashing our colored simian history. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verified, interesting, and the sort of quirky article that makes us stand out as an encyclopaedia. Suggest renaming to Monkeys on ships, however. --Malthusian (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Monkey, in the "as pets" section. Seems to be verifiable information, but I don't think its noteworthy enough in itself to deserve an article. Robin Johnson 15:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: with Monkeys, verifyable info but it's the wrong title for an encyclapedic entry. Deathawk 15:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if Monkeys in space qualifies for its own article, I see no reason Monkeys in ships shouldnt. Both have enough history behind them that a decent article for both could exist. It would needlessly cram content into Monkey to merge it (especially considering later it would need to be spun right back off again).  ALKIVAR™ 16:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Keep, Brilliant article, all verifiable. --Hermit Crab 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)This user does not exist and appears to be another vote it this AfD by User:213.202.181.5 who also removed votes. Englishrose 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This AfD is simply anti-monkey bias! Stop Anti-Monkey Bias In Wikipedia! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, survived previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailor monkey. Punkmorten 22:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• um, what happened to the delete votes that were at the start of this afd. I had changed my vote to keep and struck out my comment using <s> but the wording was changed and 3 other delete votes seem to have been removed. [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• User with the IP addy: 213.202.181.5 has disrupted the vote and this afd needs carefully restoring. Englishrose 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored into this revision, at top of page. Robin Johnson
• Keep' --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please monkeys in ships are important erasing does not make sense Yuckfoo 16:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The phrase "is thought to have occurred and is rumoured to have lead to" does not give me any confidence that this is actually true. There are no references cited beyond a reference to a fictional Hollywood movie - a medium not known for its historical accuracy. Atrian 04:48, 17 January 2006 (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.