Deletion of Jon Blake (broadcaster)

Comment: Willing public figures (which he certainly is) should not get courtesy deletion, and I've seen no evidence that the individual in question claiming to be Blake is in fact Blake. I'm not however completely convinced that the individual meets . The Sunday Mail article combined with other coverage which is apparently primarily behind Pay Walls such as as an article in The Advertiser, and the award mentioned in the article seem to arguably meet that standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The article has no real sources nor had even any before being trimmed. The section that the subject seems to object to did not have a source directly naming him as the radio personality in question and should not be included without very reliable sources. Should there be adequate  to have an article on the man, then it should be strictly trimmed to what's sourced as per . I wouldn't mind having a non-controversial stub in this instance but the fact that the subject (supposedly) wishes it gone leans me towards delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: Marginal BLP.  Non-public figure.  ''|Apparently'' subject requested.  He meets WP:BIO barely but no biographical sketch has been made of him so we can't really make a proper article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)