Omit. The sourcing is weak and (by one interpretation of "widely") the name has not been widely published by reliable sources so, per wp:DOB, we may accede to the subject's wish. But also, the name seems to have been originally leaked as a breach of trust; and the subject asserts that inclusion of the name distresses him. 

Above someone said, "the feelings of the article's subject can't be taken into account because that would violate our need for a neutral point of view." That's a falsehood. What kind of bias would that introduce? I can see none. Too many editors here equate respecting the feelings of the subject with bias. Humans take account of the feelings of others. If we weren't meant to do that, we could all be replaced by an algorithm. 

Including this trivial fact here against the express wish of the subject is gratuitously cruel. Wikipedia needs to take claims of distress from article subjects seriously, and respect those feelings where the price of doing so, as in this case, is cheap.