Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Willacy

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Willacy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted Mark Willacy (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that a brand new account knows how to submit an AfD. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I followed the the handy guide sent to me by the Wikipedia oversight team. Mark Willacy (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because there's 28 sources. You're notable enough. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep besides lots of sources, also an award winning journalist on the national broadcaster. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a request that would follow WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. I cannot say that a broadcast journalist who has won major national television and journalism awards, as the Gold Walkley and Logie Awards are, is relatively unknown or non-public. WP:ANYBIO suggests as a general correlate of notability, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
There has also been coverage of harassment of the subject in reliable sources, such as The Guardian, so it is not unthinkable that this could possibly be a bad faith move. No matter if that is the case or not, Willacy is a public figure who meets our notability guidelines. (Note: This discussion was brought to my attention at WP:DISCORD, but my views would have been the same in any event.) (edit conflict) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Australia. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sammi Brie: I mostly agree, but what do you mean by "bad faith move"? To the contrary, perhaps the subject does not want to have an article because of that harassment Ovinus (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Mostly raising the possibility, however minute, that the subject may be being impersonated. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammi Brie. It hasn't been raised in AfD but editors would be more than happy to fix any BLP issues raised on the talk page. Deus et lex (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but severely trim - I agree the subject of the article is notable, but it seems to me to give too much detail for a living BLP when there are indications that they are not wanted. I also note that the page suggests that there is ongoing litigation, which may or may not be considered relevant to this discussion. JMWt (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per "Sammi Brie" and "JMWt" Fifthapril (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - nathanielcwm (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim per JMWt. In particular the details about harassment are totally irrelevant to his career, and are mostly a product of media hype. I will clean up the article shortly. Ovinus (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ovinus' amendments to page (sort of WP:HEY). Cabrils (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep', subject is clearly notable, and whilst he might now want to be a private person in view that he is being sued, he most certainly is not. Article easily passes notabilty guidelines. Not the place for this, but strongly suggest this new Mark Willacy account also needs to be checked for sock puppetry to identify if other ABC-related accounts are being used, has they have previously. Aeonx (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPI is thisaway. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aeonx, I have contacted Wikipedia and provided my bona fides. There is no sock puppetry. Though in your case there is aggressive trolling of this page and the prosecution of a bad faith agenda against me, my reporting and my book. Your obsession with this page is unhealthy Mark Willacy (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2022 (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.