Deletion of Tristan Stephenson

Comment: I’m a senior editor with more than 50,000 edits, I’ve created 65 articles, this is the first one to have been sent for afd and I'm rather puzzled…doesn’t the fact that he has received |significant coverage in a number of different major news outlets make him inherently notable? If a topic has received significant coverage in |reliable sources that are ndependent sources|independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:I||WP:reliable sources)

Comment: at least with respect to "notability".  There are editorial issues including  and grammar but those issues can be dealt with by editing.  MOST of the references appear to be about topics OTHER than this person and/or they are from sources whose reliability and independence isn't immediately obvious.  Yes, the coverage of the person from obviously-reliable sources is more than trivial but even collectively it's not quite enough.  What put it (barely) "over the line" for me was the "todayonline" reference.  My support for keeping this is so tenuous that if someone were to make a credible claim that this story was either not independent or that the web site is not a reliable source, I would immediately switch to "delete" unless something else came along to make up the deficit. If the question at AFD was "would Wikipedia be better off without the present article than with it" I would "vote" "delete" but it's not.  The question is, "does the topic qualify for a stand-alone article and if so, is the current article salvageable."  Unless I am wrong about the "todayonline" source, the answers are "yes-but-barely" and "yes but it will take some work." Note:  If this were "Drinkpedia" or "Londonpedia" then this guy may well have unquestionable notability.  But it's not those things, it's Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPROMO)

Comment: I just added the "scenesters and drinkers' phrase as 1) it actually is the title of http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the1000/londons-1000-most-influential-people-2012-scenesters-drinkers-8289757.html the source page that the ref points to 2) it accurately reflects the claim. On the other hand, it points to the  going on. Feel free, of course, to delete as you see fit
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (WP:PUFFERY)