Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flula Borg (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 KEEP. The consensus is that the article has been sufficiently improved since nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flula Borg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Queried speedy delete :: claim that he is more significant than he was before. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - article is sourced to YouTube and non-RS sources such as NewMediaRockstars.com, Tubefilter.com, etc. Given the persistence with which this article is recreated, it should probably be WP:SALTed. DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I apologize if I'm not commenting properly for this space, but I need more information. (1) What does "non-RS sources" mean? I sincerely thought they were good sources but I can change them now that I know they're not. (2) How is recreating it just one time after (a) a full year of work and (b) seeking and receiving the approval of the deleting admin inappropriately persistent? What more should I have done to proceed appropriately? (These are sincere questions, not challenges or arguments!) I've requested help with the article many times in various places (I can show you if needed) but it just keeps being deleted with minimal explanation as to what exactly is wrong. I'm confident it can be an acceptable article if I can just figure out why it's not right. I'm really trying to do the right thing here, and I'd appreciate any information anyone can provide. Thank you. -- edi(talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've attempted to improve the sourcing of the article based on the information I've acquired. I've removed all New Media Rockstars, Tubefilter, and YouTube references (except for the "About" page, which only serves to verify statistics and is automatically generated by YouTube, not posted by any individual). I've also removed all IMDb references after being informed elsewhere that it's generally not appropriate here. If there are other objectionable sources listed, let me know and I'll remove them as well.

Also, I'm unsure whether the nominating admin's mention of a "claim that he is more significant than he was before" refers to me, but I'd like to clarify that I never intended to make that argument. My only request was that the article not be speedily deleted so that I'd have the opportunity to discuss it and (hopefully) make improvements that would cause it to be acceptable. I'm not sure whether there's a question of notability, but if there is, I'd submit that I believe Mr. Borg meets WP:MUSBIO #1, 10, and 12 as well as WP:ENT #2. It's possible that I'm wrong, of course. I'm only explaining my reasoning for writing the article. Thanks for your patience as I learn. -- edi(talk) 08:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I should probably formalize this. See above for my reasoning, and certainly feel free to contact me if you have any questions about it. Thank you. -- edi(talk) 04:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There has been substantial article improvement since nom. Two films slated for release this year should generate plenty of RS beyond what's already present. Pax 11:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article now contains multiple references to reliable sources. Coverage is significant.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:00, 27 January 2015 (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.