Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rinat Akhmetshin

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 keep. The only policy-based reason for deletion mentioned was WP:BLP1E (and WP:BIO1E as well as WP:NOTNEWS/WP:BREAKING) but it has been established that the subject was covered before the current allegations, at least back in 2015, if not already long before, so this policy does not apply. So Why 19:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rinat Akhmetshin

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

BLP1E. He's a news blurb known for a single meeting. Every notable detail is part of the meeting where he said he had evidence that the Clinton Campaign was accepting illicit funding from the Russians. DHeyward (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason to delete is because of the basic premise of why we have the policy. Bios that form out of scandal, where the impetus of creation is the scandal, become coatracks of negative information. The biographies become the "infamous Rinat Akhmetshin" rather than a neutral portrayal of his life. We have plenty of coverage of the meeting and the underlying tone of its nefarious nature. We don't need a villain biography. As of this comment, the largest portion of his article is titled "Allegations." It's clearly a coatrack and should be removed immediately. --DHeyward (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BREAKING. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We're at the beginning of this scandal unfolding, let's wait and see if this person is getting notable. Re-evaluate this AfD in maybe a month from now. --bender235 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I support Bender235's view. For now, it does seem to deserve its own entry. Deleting it would prevent people from finding good sourced information on an important topic, and the editors seem to have been quite thorough and neutral. I second the motion to re-evaluate in 30 days or so. Ebacci EN (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait He is one of a small number of people involved in a major political event as well as multiple minor ones. More information on this meeting keeps coming out. If Frank Willis is notable enough for his own page Rinat certainly could be a major historical character once this all unfolds.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As WP:1E says, "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." This is the case here. A simple google search reveals article after article digging into who this person is. That is an indication that he is notable and not simple the event as the articles about the person clearly meet the standards of WP:N.Casprings (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ongoing involvement in a historic political controversy in American politics, involvement in multiple lobbying and politicking events. PvOberstein (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I Nth the motion to re-evaluate in 30 days or so. Twang (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wait and see if article is worthy isn't really part of the deletion process. When people are voting wait, are they saying keep article up and wait to see if it's notable? Or are they saying redirect somewhere else and wait and see if subject deserves its own article afterwards. So far it seems the former is what the current wait votes want, but imo thouse should be a keep vote, because no article should be created that might be in a month might be thought of having never being notable enough to create. He is either notable now or he isn't. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people who voted "Wait", I would like to clarify that my vote is, indeed, a vote to Keep. Your comment is quite valid, and the amount of information coming through the last two days reinforces my view that the subject does indeed meet WP:N criteria. Ebacci EN (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Early days, but however things are to play out, he is a prominent lobbyist, who apparently has shunned the spotlight, successfully until recently.Axxxion (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the subject of in depth biographical coverage by CNN, Vox, Newsweek, NPR, NBC News and several other media outlets. Although one event motivated this burst of coverage, these articles describe his entire career in significant detail and do not focus only on his attendance at the famous meeting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is significant coverage by the New York Times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Rather unclear how notable this person may turn out to be. He may not turn out to be especially notable but there is reason to speculate that he may. As long as the article has been created, might as well give it a few weeks and see what turns up in the media reports before deciding. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:6DB3:525C:4CE:A3BE (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , not a BLP1E, subject was previously notable for 1990s work, 2015 allegations. Darmokand (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. I'm neutral on whether a standalone article is called for (I suggest wait for the reasons suggested above), but deletion is clearly not proper here since this is a plausible search term. Neutrality^talk 23:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is the only neutral source for this person who plays a role in a critical political controversy Jasoncward (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has substantial coverage prior to this months revelations; sample: this 2007 book The Oil and the Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea. Not a WP:BIO1E situation for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wide coverage and as noted by K.e.coffman this has included over ten years ago as well. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is more than enough biographical material available in reliable sources to justify an independent article.- Mr X 23:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the argument that we should "wait": Shouldn't notability precede the creation of an article? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's tons of info on him in a large number of reliable independent third-party sources, so he easily meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Definitely not BLP1E because he's been in the headlines since at least May of this year, as the citations attest. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's a one event "wonder" and it's still unclear what role he actually played. I hardly consider 20+/- minutes in a meeting with Trump Jr last year to be encyclopedic, much less notable. He was there, and that's about it other than he may have been lobbying for his cause to the wrong people. Nothing came of it beyond a lot of bait-click $$ for the news sources. Don't forget, the whole meeting was initially setup under the pretense they had info that would expose Hillary Clinton for her alleged dealings with the Russians. Makes me feel like we're being duped all the way around by the Russian government who is sitting back enjoying a big harty-har-har at the frenzy they created in the media. Hopefully people realize how the MSM plays stories like this and milks them as long as the bait-click feature is driving traffic. When that dies down, they turn their sensationalistic propaganda to something else. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trump campaign-Russian meeting, the one event for which he is known. There is already some basic biographical information in the article. There is a lot of press coverage about him right now, but all of it dates from July 2017 when his name became linked with a highly notable event and reporters started digging into his past. (Correction: there is one reference about him from May 2017, but hardly enough to have made him notable at that time.) Before that nobody had heard of him. If (which I doubt) he later becomes notable for something else, or is thrust into a more prominent role in this situation, the redirect could be expanded back to an article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On a quick search, I've found this article dated May 2016. On the article itself, it is mentioned an earlier 2015 article by the NYT which already described Rinat's interests. I believe that the fact that most sources are from July 2017 can be explained by the fact that this is a new article, so editors have picked the easiest sources they could find. I don't think it's the case though, that older sources simply don't exist. They are there, and if applicable to this entry, they should be added to provide depth on the subject-person, specially if it is related to something other than the Trump campaign or the Magnitsky Act. Ebacci EN (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, press coverage dates back to 2015 in the NYT, and includes abundant coverage well prior to the recent news about the June 2016 meeting. This is easily verified by a Google search for results prior to the recent uptick. See some sample news coverage on the talkpage of the article. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2017 (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.