Deletion of Chaplin's Patent Distilling Apparatus with Steam Pump

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:INTERESTING)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: 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 .  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  encourages such and is explicitly endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. (Also, the link you provided to  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:USPP||WP:NOT)