Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coconut monkey (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 Delete - there might be a potential article out there with this title or something similar, but it appears this isn't it. Yomangani ^talk 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut monkey[edit]

Prod contested. Article is somewhat OR, and the title is not proper for the content. Delete to give room for a better written article. UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassingly, this is the second afd for this article apparently. here's the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coconut monkey where apparently WP:V was ignored Bwithh 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has sources, verifiable. Remove the bits of original research (the entire article is not OR). An article should not be deleted to make room for a better written article... that makes no sense at all. --- RockMFR 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks kind of dubious to me; the source for bulk of the article is a 1998 article on "gospelweb", which is mostly interested in making a homily out of the story. I'm inclined to think that this is an old canard. --Brianyoumans 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V No supporting, reliable sources. Gospelweb link is unreliable. NBC brief news story has nothing to do with the main point of the article and does not support the phrase or "idiom" (no explanation in article of what that is about). Article style/content smells hoaxy. And what on earth does Cargo cults have to do with this article? Bwithh 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the contribution history of the original article creator (whose name suggests a possible troll) increases suspicion this article was created as a ~~hoax~~ joke. See [1][2][3][4][5]. Bwithh 23:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely article. Rever e ndG 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many Ghits describing this as monkey trap. Rename and clean up? Tonywalton | Talk 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend just starting a new article Monkey trap, and maybe reusing some text from this article. There shouldn't be a redirect from Coconut monkey - no evidence that this phrase applies Bwithh 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This concept was described in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. I do believe it was called a "monkey trap", definitely had the word "trap" in it. This rules out that the article was either a hoax or made up in school one day. It does not rule out that the article is non-notable or not properly sourced. Baccyak4H (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "Coconut monkey" not "monkey trap" and the article was clearly started as a joke. Pirsig's term is "South Indian Monkey Trap"[6], he does not mention "Coconut monkey". Bwithh 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are many many uses of this little story to make various moral or religious points, but I haven't seen any evidence that anyone actually hunts monkeys this way in real life. Would it be notable simply as a moral fable? I'm not sure. --Brianyoumans 04:23, 20 November 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.