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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BadVolf[edit]

BadVolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References either are in passing or do not mention article subject. reddogsix (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Identified as the antagonist ("BadWolf") in three of the article's sources: [1], [2], [3] ~Kvng (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Dougan reddogsix (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A related AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBSOTalk reddogsix (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Just being in the story isn't significant coverage. The event is getting coverage, not the person. BLP1E may apply too. (Additionally, those 3 sources are 1 RS, 1 questionable source and one that clearly doesn't pass RS.) Niteshift36 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BLP One E; the sources are not enough to support a BLP DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I had planned to comment to sooner, none of this suggests satisfying the applicable notability and this all seems to be part of one event for the hackings. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 3 March 2016 (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.