This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Lucy Bloom is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
This page is problematic. As others have pointed out there are a series of edits on this page which appear to be from the subject of the article systematically sanitizing their own Wikipedia entry -- including the deletion of notable, newsworthy and controversial events described in a neutral point of view with comprehensive citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vengeful Pangolin (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Pinging recent editors of this content: @Justsomeaddedthings, Editweshall, The person who loves reading, and Matt Deres: I have removed this section as undue. To have nearly a third of the article devoted to some e-drama sourced entirely to social media is not justifiable in my view. Without independent sourcing I don't really think it belongs in the article at all (if secondary sources don't care about it why should we?) but if someone wants to shave it down to maybe one or two sentences, taking care to maintain a dispassionate tone, I probably wouldn't worry about it. Squeakachu (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. This article is being used to harass and bully the subject which would seem ironic. 141.168.39.49 (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The subject themselves recently wrote and published an article about it on an Australian website called Women's Agenda (which was promptly removed). Beyond that, Australian media doesn't care as outside of certain business circles, the subject is a non-entity in terms of fame and reputation.
Is their behavior abhorrent? Yes, but it shouldn't take up a third of the article. I do feel it deserves a sentence or two, though, for transparency's sake, as most of what you'll find online about the subject comes from themselves.
If no reliable source is provided for the subject matter, it can't be part of the article. AFAIK screenshots on instagram and tiktok don't count as reliable sources, so we can't include anything on this unless or until the story is properly picked up on 217.72.117.1 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
