Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Fruman

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. Star Mississippi 16:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Fruman

[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)

Clear violation of WP:BLP1E relevant details should be merged into Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are way past that stage. He has become notable enough for his own article. Giving proper coverage (literally everything here) at Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections would create a due weight problem requiring a summary style splitting off, resulting in what we have here, so there is no sense in deleting this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable for a single event. That it's widely covered is neither here nor there.Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, Judaism, Belarus, Ukraine, Florida, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep BLP1E requires three conditions to be met. #3, The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, is not met. The event is significant and his role in it is substantial and well documented. I say "weak" here because he has maintained a lower profile than Lev Parnas. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than one event. There's his involvement in efforts in Ukraine to search for damaging information on Biden, and then there's his campaign finance law conviction. The two are, as the article states, unrelated. Jfire (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. subject has enough reliable coverage such as 1 and 2.Bradelykooper (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2024 (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.