In today's world,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lisney is a recurring theme that has caught the attention of millions of people around the world. Its relevance has transcended borders and its impact has been felt in various areas. Since its emergence,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lisney has aroused the interest of experts and fans alike, generating debates, research and reflections that seek to understand its meaning and influence on society. Over time,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lisney has become a phenomenon that leaves no one indifferent, challenging established perceptions and beliefs. In this article, we will closely explore the impact of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Lisney in different contexts and the implications it has on everyday life.
- 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 nomination and one other had concerns over independent sourcing establishing notability which have been found and added to a (now) significantly improved article (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- James Lisney (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)
NN entertainer. No independent sources. And the article made by an SPA. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well... not quite a SPA, as the author did edit other articles from January through November of 2007. However, he does not seem to have a hand on WP:PEOPLE. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The article just needs some sources: , , , , , (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – The sources provided, even if provided by those !voting "delete", seem widely spread and reliable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - In addition to the discography of his own record company, mentioned on his web site, there is his discography at AllMusic. That and the reviews listed by Lemnaminor are enough to convince me. --Stfg (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:24, 17 September 2014 (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.