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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@evleaks[edit]

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

This article, while ostensibly well sourced, covers a subject who appears to not meet the requirements of the notability guidelines. To wit, two of the four sources which cover the subject (and not the devices they're leaking) do so only tangentially. The Verge included Blass in a story about prescription drugs, and Wired included him in a list of 101 reporters. The Times of India does cover Blass in detail but this does not meet the requirements of "significant coverage" in multiple outlets. The fourth, on Android Police is a blog which we don't normally consider as sufficient to demonstrate notability.

I've searched through google news for more sourcing on @evleaks or Evan Nelson Blass and can't find much else (though the search itself is confounded by bylines or attributions for leaks). Many of the remaining inline sources in the article refer to phones leaked by Blass or his employment at various tech writing outlets.

As you review the nomination please follow the linked sources and determine for yourself if they cover Blass tangentially or if they are indeed significant coverage of Blass himself. The devices leaked are all obviously notable and garner swaths of press coverage, hence the article itself may contain many references despite a paucity of sourcing on Blass.

More troubling is the likelihood that @evleaks is edited and maintained by an editor who appears to be Blass's PA and the anonymous threat here to an editor who tagged the page for speedy deletion. As such, this leaves me unwilling to ignore the article as I might a relatively anodyne stub made independently. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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 WP:COI - WP:PROMO. 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. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my comments on the articles talk page. I also conducted a search on my countries main news sites web pages and found one mention on each site, which effectively was the same article reworded (for copy-write reason), where @evleaks was mentioned once and in passing only.The Original Filfi (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously commented, subject does not in and of himself meet Wikipedia basic guidelines for notability defined by Wikipedia:BASIC, even if several of the subjects he leaks are notable because the associated companies are large and well known. @evleaks himself has not been covered in multiple significant, reliable outlets. While the article points out @evleaks was a former blogger at Engadget and other tech blogs (under his real name Evan Blass), searches do not show any of his blog writings indicate notability as defined by Wikipedia:AUTHOR. I will set aside the fact @evleaks contacted me to threaten/intimidate me from making changes to the article, as that is tangential: the article warrants deletion on its own. Wikigeek2 (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2014 (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.