Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine Translations


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Machine Translations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

declined prod. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article was prod'ed but no reason was given for its decline, subject fails MUSICBIO and no substantial coverage is found. Eduemoni↑talk↓  18:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Plenty of references have now been added to easily fulfil the substantial coverage to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG and lots of other capital letters. And please link your internal shortcuts, so that we can read them quickly. The-Pope (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the fact that many of the cites mention the subject's obscurity, there are enough of them from reliable sources to pass the notability bar, for me. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I said when I deProded this article the subject is notable under various guises: as Machine Translations (the performance artist/band) there are some eight albums issued; as J Walker (the producer/engineer/mixer) he has worked on his own and other artists' albums; as Greg Walker (the composer) he has been nomination for national awards numerous times. I have supplied numerous reliable sources for these claims, some have page long descriptions of the artist's works by easily checkable online media.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly the nominator hasn't read the article and seen that the subject is notable. The article is well referenced as per User:Shaidar cuebiyar's preceding comments. Dan arndt (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read the original article which was poorly sourced. It is now improved. LibStar (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I presume Libstar you're going to withdraw your nomination.... Dan arndt (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep looking pretty damn good now.Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PRETTY not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my lazy wording. I meant it's well-referenced now.Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2013 (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.