Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgi Rtskhiladze

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. While I realize that this is not the strict numeric result, the delete arguments are substantially stronger, as even the keep arguments note only brief mentions in the Mueller report. This would not be sufficient source coverage to sustain notability. Combined with BLP concerns raised, this indicates that the result should be to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Rtskhiladze[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP1E, and it's not even much of an event: the guy wrote a couple messages about rumored "Trump in Moscow" tapes. Put this text exchange in a footnote of the Mueller Report or Steele Dossier article, at best. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "Rtskhiladze" in the redacted Mueller Report 27 times.[1] X1\ (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person and the related controversy seem to be sufficiently important because they are related to the both Mueller Report and Trump–Russia dossier subjects. Here is one of many publications explaining this. Of course I would not trust anything this businessmen tells, but that is hardly relevant to his notability. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I think passes WP:GNG --SalmanZ (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How so? He is known for one event, a brief mention in the Mueller Report about some messages he once sent to Cohen. Where's the coverage of his business or his person to assert GNG? There's a little bit of information in the cited New Yorker article, but it's not focused on him, so not enough for GNG. Just BLP1E. — JFG ^talk 01:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Hi, following your note, I reviewed the article for General Notability, and I agree with you and respect your opinion ,so I deleted my vote. Regards --SalmanZ (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SalmanZ: Thank you, but do you mean now to be neutral or to support the deletion of the article? — JFG ^talk 23:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, For now neutral, Regards --SalmanZ (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mention by X1, he appears 27 times in the Mueller report. This makes him more prominent in the report than former policy director to the Trump campaign John Mashburn (11 results) and Michael Glassner (12), who introduced Papadopoulos to the Trump campaign (according to the Mueller report). Furthermore, Rtskhiladze's contacts with Michael Cohen represent some of the few Russia–Trump campaign links that exist, and his name is prominent due to the mention of "tapes". One of the footnotes regarding his interview is still redacted by Grand Jury. One Central Asian outlet even made an article about pronouncing his name right, and Rtskhiladze is currently disputing parts of the footnote mentioning the alledged tapes (article from two days ago). I believe he does not fall within WP:BLP1E because his presence in the report is substantial enough, because he does not qualify as WP:LOWPROFILE and due to him also not attempting to keep a low profile (Bloomberg interview) — Pilaz (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to remind editors that being mentioned in the Mueller report (a primary source) does not confer any notability in and of itself. What is needed are secondary reliable sources independent of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." This is further explained in Subjects notable only for one event. He is identified in the article as a co-owner of the Silk Road Transatlantic Alliance, but there is nothing about his role in the company and the company itself fails notability. Otherwise, his only coverage in the media has been because he objected to a footnote in the Mueller report. So he's sort of like a footnote to a footnote of history. TFD (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that WP:BLP1E applies here, can you specify what the single event in question is? Pilaz (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Everything in the article equals "nothing" but run-of-the-mill stuff including the events in the Role in development of Trump Towers in Georgia section. The one "claim to fame" would be the exchanged text conversation with Donald Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen that was included in the Mueller Report. This would be the WP:BLP1E that seems feigned as not clear. Without this there is nothing "worthy of notice". If it is kept it will just amount to Trump drama junk. Just being associated with Trump or mentioned in a report does not convey notability which is not not inherited. The !votes, that the subject "appears 27 times in the Mueller report", a primary source as indicated by the relisting comments, does not advance notability "of the event" so the !votes are negated as non-persuasive reasoning that the subject is "prominent enough" for an article just on those grounds. "Trump's itchy Twitter finger" would likely be more notable. Otr500 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP1E. Not even sure they would be notable if 1E did not exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2019 (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.