Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@evleaks
Source coverage is borderline for establishing notability. Like the nom, if that were the only issue I'd be inclined to give it a pass. Unfortunately the article is also an unambiguous  - . That plus the iffy sourcing tips the argument in favor of deletion. I did not take into consideration the menacing comment, allegedly from the subject of the article, preferring to judge the article on its own merits. But I will note that it was not very classy
— User:Ad, 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:PROMO (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)