Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micromechanical Flying Insect

: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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

=[[Micromechanical Flying Insect]]=

:{{la|Micromechanical Flying Insect}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Micromechanical Flying Insect}})

Deprodded by IP with an "it needs work" comment. I see no non-trivial secondary sources, however. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep - evidently notable. Putting the article's title into GoogleScholar gives a host of peer reviewed papers on the subject - [http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?start=0&q=Micromechanical+flying+insect&hl=fr&as_sdt=0]. I have insufficient knowledge of this field to improve it myself, but this is a subject which Wikipedia should cover. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. He to Hecuba (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Before nominating something for deletion, you should always do a quick Google news archive search so you don't end up wasting everyone's time. Eugene Register-Guard Jul 28, 2002 Team sets sights high on mechanical insects [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Pb5YAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1OsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4983,6856018&dq=micromechanical-flying-insect&hl=en], The Dallas Morning News, The Advocate [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AD&p_theme=ad&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F5AAAE7CC1A57F7&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM], etc. etc. Just click the link at the top of the AFD, and you can see articles covering this specifically in many different reliable sources, some published years apart. Dream Focus 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep, trout nominator. This has more RS coverage than pretty much anything I've ever seen at AfD. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Plenty of coverage in Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep This article, while brief, has some excellent reliable source inline citations, and can easily be updated with even more. I improved the grammar. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep It's about new and promising field. Sure article needs work, in particular illustrations... User:Abune (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micromechanical_Flying_Insect&diff=477126709 rewritten] the article and removed some tangential information. All statements are now sourced. Given the amount of coverage (see references in the article and the links at [http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ronf/mfi.html/publicity.html]), a GA could easily be written on this project. Goodvac (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Quasi human | Talk 18:08, 16 February 2012 (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.