Deletion of Petraria Arcatinus

Comment: I personally do like the article; this is interesting stuff. However it cannot be denied that it presents as a big pile of . Of the provided sources, those that use the actual name seem to uniformly be based on "this is what we heard people call these things" (the rest deal with ancillary material and not this machine itself). That's not good enough for an encyclopedia article. There's just too much might-have-been/possibly-called/one-could-conclude stuff in here. We don't need to be gunning for a monograph on the subject, but at least a clear and unambiguous mention beyond a mere name drop in a reliable scholarly publication would be expected. I'd like to note that I just found what I believe to be a better treatment than any yet cited on the page: a book review in a History of Science journal https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/229649.pdf?casa_token=rHXapoi8jP0AAAAA:Plwps7zWkUboQd2iyNAnBR0qS-9ocW90nJNUJg42bt3Oyggugq7EN1lo82hcCjGZ_B68E2qasVWQjovcvF8qwqBeJWBKVpQwy29mRS9N4Rmi6ed9EN4 - search for "arcuballista", then read the next two pages' worth of text. And that still doesn't provide a solid basis for an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)