Deletion of Luke Nash-Jones

Comment: I would advise you to please do not launch into |personal attacks on other editors. The account you mentioned as a "fake account" is an active account that had their user page deleted at their request
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)

Comment: There are currently 13 references in the article. All apart from (9) and (13) appear to fail : they are primary sources, or social media accounts (Facebook, YouTube) connected to the individual. (13) does not mention Nash-Jones at all. (9) is a students union website with unclear editorial policy; it's an article by Nash-Jones, so I don't think this can be said to meet RS either. The YouTube clips are all on a YouTube account connected to Nash-Jones; I can't verify their use by French or Swiss TV. One is under a minute long, one about a minute and the half. A brief appearance on TV does not constitute "significant coverage" about the subject under . I do personally support the Liberal Democrats, but would remind
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: All the sources are either non-reliable or barely mention him. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: this is very typical  by a conflicted creator with plain old advocacy mixed in, as well evidenced by almost all the hallmarks of .  Sources are poor - passing mentions and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX||WP:TENDENTIOUS||WP:SPS)

Comment: I don't see any |sources that show how they have met . Passing mentions in the news aren't enough I'm afraid, and links to vidoes on YouTube and Facebook are not enough to meet this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: The YouTube clips are on the LondonUniBrexit YouTube account, and Nash-Jones is Vice-President of that society. I support the LibDems, but I support Wikipedia having good content about all topics of sufficient notability. Again, I suggest you peruse  carefully. Attacks on others' motives are not appropriate. If you can supply details of the student union website's editorial approach, that would help determine if it constitutes a reliable secondary sources under 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:RS)