Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rinat Akhmetshin

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]

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]