Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgi Koshadze

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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 01:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Koshadze

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

The player does not meet the WP:NRU guideline for notability. He needs to play either for a fully professional club in a major league or have played in an international competition ie. World Cup. It is WP:TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meat the WP:NRU criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remain - Georgia are officially a high performance union, as classified by World Rugby, WP:NRU desperately needs and update as four new nations are now also HPU. An appearance for Georgia at first team level should be sufficient for a player to be notable, regardless of competition. I have been trying to get this criteria updated but don't know who it is I need to go through so have left a comment on the page in hope. To conclude, if the WP:NRU criteria had been revised in the last 5 years there would be no question of this players notability. So, this page should remain.--BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi BulgarianBoy21 could you please give a source for the classification of Georgia as a high performance union by the World rugby i couldn't find the reference anywhere. The following is an extract from the valid regulations on the world rugby web site.

“High Performance Union” means a Union designated as such by the Council and/or the CEO. As at 24 May 2011 the Unions of the following countries are High Performance Unions: Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States and Wales.

There is evidence that there are 3 more nations who have entered the "high performance union" as this extract comes from the IRB investment statement suggests

"The main objectives of World Rugby’s elite Game investment are to maintain and improve standards of men’s 15s at both Tier One (the 10 Six Nations/Rugby Championship Unions) and Tier Two (the other 10 RWC qualified Unions)"

the trouble is that I can't find proof of which nations have entered. If you can find it I would be happy to support an immediate change in the WP:NRU criteria. I agree that it is not normal that the players from the number 12 nation in the world are considered less notable than those from the N° 17 (USA) N°15 (Tonga) N°14 (Samoa) N°16 (Romania) N° 18 (Canada). It would need to be IMHO a primary source from the IRB. I've just spent 30 minutes looking and couldn't find it. Good luck! Domdeparis (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following link infers in several places that all tier two RWC 2015 nations are high performance unions. But aside from inference they also reference the Tbilisi Cup as being a 'High performance competition'. This is both hosted and competed in by Georgia as it has been since 2013. http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/90002?lang=en

I agree that World Rugby have not done a great job making it abundantly clear that several unions have been upgraded to HPU, however I would also like to reference that earlier this year Georgia were welcomed onto the World Rugby council. This is something other unions such as Fiji, Samoa or Tonga have not achieved, indicating Georgia's standing in the world game and hence their players notability. http://www.worldrugby.org/news/158700?lang=en http://www.worldrugby.org/organisation/structure/council?lang=en

This link also references Tier 2 as being high performance. http://www.worldrugby.org/development/development-investment?lang=en

If you follow the link on this page it can be seen that it clearly denotes the fact that High performance tier two sides are defined by the 10 RWC qualified nations outside the Rugby Championship and Six Nations. This can be found under the high performance heading, two pages from the end. This is stated in both the text and the table of investments. http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/high-performance?lang=en

I think that last link in particular should be sufficient to justify Georgia's position as a HPU, especially when it is considered that they have already qualified for RWC 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BulgarianBoy21 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close but no cigar what we need is a list of tiers 2 unions and everything is in place to ask for a change in WP:NRU criteria. I'll keep looking too Domdeparis (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've pulled a quote from that last link

"High Performance

The main objectives of World Rugby’s elite Game investment are to maintain and improve standards of men’s 15s at both Tier One (the 10 Six Nations/Rugby Championship Unions) and Tier Two (the other 10 RWC qualified Unions)" I could provide a link to proof of Georgia having competed in RWC 2015, but there's really no need. There can be no doubt that Georgia, as a side who have qualified for the RWC every time from 2003-2019, classify as one of 'the other 10 RWC qualified unions'. Especially given that the document is dated 2015, meaning it could either be referring to RWC 2015 or 2019, but because they qualified for both it really doesn't matter. So it can surely be confirmed they are both tier 2 and one of 'the other 10 RWC qualified Unions'.

On the same page of this document it refers to World Rugby's 'High Performance Tier Two Unions (10) Investment'. The bracketed 10 here refers to the aforementioned 'other 10 RWC qualified nations '. This both clarifies Georgia's position as tier two and high performance. Thus their player notability is assured. What do you think Domdeparis? -- BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds good to me. What I'll do is post a comment on the talk page of WP:NRU and see if there are any objections and then update the definition of High performance unions. Domdeparis (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check out my suggestion for change here. Talk page NRU. Domdeparis (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks good, hope this works out. -- BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as in fact notable for playing with not only the national team, but a team who itself has played in 2 major cups (one international and one world). SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 24 November 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.