Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Stephenson

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. Swarm ♠ 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Stephenson[edit]

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

Notanillty not established. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notability clearly established with significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, with reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the article's author. Where do you think you "clearly established" notability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, with reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? The Evening Standard, Time Out, The Daily Telegraph and BBC. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for repeating what you wrote before, but I read it the first time. I note that you fail to provide specific examples. There is no "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly". The reliable "secondary sources" you name mention in him only in passing, or as a member of lists in puff pieces. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - This article in the Daily Telegraph is an in-depth article [1] This article [2] on the BBC news website is an in-depth article, similarly this one is far more than a passing mention [3] as is this one [4] Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        They former are indeed in-depth articles - but their subject is not Tristan Stephenson. The whiskyshow.com page is a puff piece promoting on of his professional engagements; and thus not independent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't have to be an article's topic for the article to contribute to establishing your notability. Rather, the section of the article that is about you must discuss you in some detail. As many of these articles do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to look up my edit count, and articles created, but my point, regardless of such irrelevancies, is that he hasn't received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. That is what these sources are exactly. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree grudgingly with your assertion that Mr stephenson may have acquired 'significant coverage', however I feel that the overall 'look and feel' is gratingly aspirational rather than based on a tidal wave of public opinion. Caveywavey46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has made no other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please address the comment that I have made rather than myself personally. I have previously used wikipedia informally but have made a user account this time because I don't like seeing it misused. Caveywavey46 (talk)
    - You have yet to make a valid reason for deletion? You agree he has acquired significant coverage. An article being "gratingly aspirational" is not a valid reason for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is in my book, perhaps better brains than me can see some sense here. And honestly, when was "Drinks industry expert" ever a real occupation, he' s clearly a barman/entrepeneur. Caveywavey46 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (obviously): Apologies in advance if I'm abusing the structure of of this discussion (it would appear that I have), this is a new Wikipedia account and I'm not familiar with the etiquette just yet. As you can see from my name, this article is about me. It's not often you have to defend your life's achievements for the sake of a web page, but since others have an opinion on the notability of my story I suppose it's only proper that I chip in. Believe it or not, I am a notable figure within the international drinks industry, as well as a bestselling author -- I have not previously edited this page myself, but if it would help to keep it in place I am happy to add links to more recent print interviews and articles? This and this, perhaps? You'll be pleased to discover that they are more than just mentions in passing, and I refrain from being 'gratingly aspirational' wherever possible. Or a link to one of my pieces for Time.com? - Tristanstephenson (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ran a quick news google search Here: [5]. He's notable, all right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search does not stablish notability; please be more specific. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Apologies for my lack of experience in this matter, I would like to suggest that the entry stops plugging 'Fluid Movement' which is clearly just a non-notable business entity. This would make the whole thing seem less manipulative in my view. Apart from that he seems to have enough contacts in the press to maintain some kind of notability for the moment.Caveywavey46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the reference to that company from the opening sentence. I didn't touch the mention further on down because it will take some thought to rewrite that part of the article without butchering it. If you have the time, please make a go of it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -There are plenty of references, as stated above and in the article, that establish his notability. ABF99 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not determined through counting references; especially when, as in this case, they are either not substantial, or not independent, or both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep bordering on neutral at least with respect to "notability". There are editorial issues including WP:NOTPROMO 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. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I honestly don't know where to start editing this, especially as my edits could be shot down in flames by one of Mr Stephenson's advocates. If we were to argue each point individually would it be better to do it in a different place or keep it all here?

Could we at least all agree that "Stephenson was also included in the Evening Standard's Top 1000 influential Londoners in 2012 in the category of "scenesters and drinkers".[14]" could be considered 'peripheral'.Caveywavey46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I just added the "scenesters and drinkers' phrase as 1) it actually is the title of the source page that the ref points to 2) it accurately reflects the claim. On the other hand, it points to the WP:PUFFERY going on. Feel free, of course, to delete as you see fit. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT It's on my list. Could one of the previous editors or Mr Stephenson himself confirm that he is part owner of The Whistling Shop and Polzeath Cafe whereas I believe that Purl has changed hands and Dachs and sons has ceased trading? This is the idea I am getting from reading the sources.--Caveywavey46 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this one, just to check myself since other editors disagree. But we seem to be in age of celebrity chefs and celebrity bartenders. there is stuff like The Telegraph, Here: [6] featuring bartenders including Tony Conigliaro (mixologist) and describing Stephenson as a "drinks expert." There is now a college ballplayer with the same name - the ball player gets the first 2 results on this news google search. But affter that, it's all this cocktail-mixing Brit [7]. so I'll stick with my Keep vote. Like most promotion on Wikipedia, this article can and should be whittled down to size.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question, have just added some words to the article about one of his books being shortlisted for a book award, although this one may not be deemed noteworthy? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with davidwr that this is a very, very weak keep at best. The sources are overwhelmingly promotional in nature, like "Time Out London." There are a number of mere quotes, which don't support notability and really shouldn't be included as references if you want people to take the article seriously. Ditto using two nearly identical articles about the coffee bean story. I have a hard time seeing articles about "Scenesters" and ones about the opening of restaurants and bars as adding up to notability. But there ARE articles that are about him, and I suppose it may be possible to be a notable "mixologist." LaMona (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG based on multiple, substantial, independently published sources of presumed reliability showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Article meets barren GNG based on sources. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:48, 17 September 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.