The result was keep. First, there is the issue of the G5 speedy deletion criterion ("Creations by banned or blocked users"). The WP:G5 policy clarifies:
At the time of the nomination, and the speedy delete votes early on in the discussion, this did apply and the page would have been a valid speedy deletion candidate. However, during the course of the discussion, an admirable effort to expand and rewrite the entire article has taken place, so the "no substantial edits by others" part of the criterion is no longer applicable. Indeed, consensus now appears to be that the subject passes notability requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Created by a banned sockpuppet, and most of the coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Considered PROD, but decided against given that the sources here. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interestand it is also
generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. But, here, we're not debating the veracity of a claim by the Russian government, or something similar. This is about notability. And Tass, among many other sources, reports that our subject is president of a top sporting organization and has been for a significant number of years, with information about the office and other bureaucratic details - a position which, per se, renders him notable. One can hardly imagine the BLP of any person in charge of a country's (and not a small country's either) top football authority not having a Wikipedia article!
The result was keep. First, there is the issue of the G5 speedy deletion criterion ("Creations by banned or blocked users"). The WP:G5 policy clarifies:
At the time of the nomination, and the speedy delete votes early on in the discussion, this did apply and the page would have been a valid speedy deletion candidate. However, during the course of the discussion, an admirable effort to expand and rewrite the entire article has taken place, so the "no substantial edits by others" part of the criterion is no longer applicable. Indeed, consensus now appears to be that the subject passes notability requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Created by a banned sockpuppet, and most of the coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Considered PROD, but decided against given that the sources here. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interestand it is also
generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. But, here, we're not debating the veracity of a claim by the Russian government, or something similar. This is about notability. And Tass, among many other sources, reports that our subject is president of a top sporting organization and has been for a significant number of years, with information about the office and other bureaucratic details - a position which, per se, renders him notable. One can hardly imagine the BLP of any person in charge of a country's (and not a small country's either) top football authority not having a Wikipedia article!