Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ike Kaveladze

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. If 95% of the sources are related to a single event, then logically 5% are not, which means WP:BLP1E no longer applies as a reason for deletion. The subject's notability has not been questioned otherwise. So Why 07:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Kaveladze[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E person. Nothing of value to preserve. Redirect to Trump campaign–Russian meeting. — JFG ^talk 07:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search shows that there is enough coverage of him, and not just the event, to justify WP:N. Moreover, considering the continued coverage, he is not likely to remain low pro-file.Casprings (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has risen to the limelight due to BPL1E (the meeting). However subsequent coverage is on other issues as well (e.g. the 1.4 Billion USD he allegedly move for corporations per NYT, dating back to 2000). As he is connected to the whole "Russia/Trump" angle - it is unlikely that coverage of him will die out soon. Per WP:RAPID (all be it modified for the slow-moving "Trump/Russia" angle) - it is probably best to keep and reassess notability (if it is an issue) 1-2 years from now.Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - Google shows a ton of sourcing for him; WaPo, Newsweek, NBC News, NPR, CNN, Independent, and Guardian, among others, have reported on this. Jdcomix (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tons of sourcing, 95% of it related to the Trump campaign–Russian meeting. He is not notable independently from this event (BLP1E). — JFG ^talk 08:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve -- makes sense to keep with above comment and lots of sourcing. But the article needs a lot more sources itself to back up and prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSF 323 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created today. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 23 August 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.