Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Dotoratos


 * 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   deleted early by RobertG under WP:CSD G7. RobertG ♬ talk 06:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ray Dotoratos

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced since March 2008. The subject is not clearly notable, and the author of the page implies it is up to Wikipedia to provide sources. I have brought it here for consensus after the latest exchange at the discussion page made it clear that the author believes doubters have some personal axe to grind. RobertG ♬ talk 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: On 3 July, the article's creator blanked the page and substituted a lengthy verbatim passage from fastcompany.com completely unrelated to the article's subject.. I have reverted it to the original version under discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No WP:RS to support claims of notabilty such as they are (and I . I googled around and could only find what others noted: passing mention at most. Despite the extensive list of venues where he claims to have played, few of them are important or connote any sort of recognition at all, and none of them are cited. If someone plays once at some even incredibly famous concert hall and nobody even bothers to review the performance in depth good or bad, that's pretty damning against being notable. DMacks (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment See article talk-page for others' analysis of lack of citeable specific claims of notability. DMacks (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails all of the notability criteria for musicians - has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, has never had a notable album or compilation, has never received coverage for a national or international tour, has not released two (or even one) album, has won no major competitions, does not appear to have a major fan base and has not been part of two or more notable ensembles. Article has been tagged as needing sources for more than a year, with followup requests at the Wikiprojects for music, classical music and musicians, all to no avail. The one potentially verifiable claim (a good review inthe New York Times) is not substantiated by reference to the Times archives, which mentions him only once in a trivial listing of artists. An extended notability debate here generated nothing except vague assertions by the article creator. Dotoratos certainly exists, but the article simply doesn't meet the notability criteria. Euryalus (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per my comments on the article talk page which I am copying here for the record:
 * As of now, the subject doesn't meet any of the notability criteria normally used for classical musicians. Coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject is non-existent. A search of the New York Times archives shows no reviews mentioning him by name despite the claims in the article (and only one trivial mention in a concert announcement). I've also searched this data base to which I have a subscription - nothing. In lieu of significant coverage, are there reliable sources to verify that he has placed first in a notable national or international competition? Has he at least two recordings with on a notable classical music record label? Has he appeared as a soloist (not simply playing a solo part while seated in the orchestra, but standing in front of the orchestra) with major orchestras? Is he a member of a notable chamber music ensemble? I suspect the answer is no. If it were yes, there would be some coverage to be found. I'll give you some examples of AfDs in similar cases where the result was delete: Richard Spece, Laven Sowell, Malina Dimitrova. I'd suggest asking for an opinion at WikiProject Classical music. They have access to specialist publications, and could give you a view on the likelihood of this passing an AfD. My own view is that it wouldn't pass.
 * A further comment to the article's creator - this AfD does not imply that Ray Dotoratos is not a good musician or that his community outreach performances are not worthwhile. It concerns whether there is sufficient and verifiable notability (by Wikipedia's standards) for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A common misperception in AfDs is that "notability" is synonymous with "accomplishments". It isn't. Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I checked Google news, books, and scholar, and the NYT index and couldn't find any mention other than concert listings. Not notable as far as I can tell. Rees11 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music – Voceditenore (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This source: offers more information than just a listing...but the other sources seem to only mention him very briefly, and that one source is certainly not terribly detailed.  I think he is pretty solidly non-notable at this point.  Cazort (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I participated in the talk page discussion as well, showing what I had found in my search for coverage of the artist. Suffice to say it fell far short of satisfying WP:MUSIC. --  At am a chat 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is some evidence above that Ray Dotoratos is alive for starters.
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/nyregion/music-keyboard-is-featured-in-concerts.html
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ray+dotoratos+clemens+center&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
 * http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:q_lrSPSlb8AJ:documents.cms.k12.nc.us/dsweb/Get/Document-2502/013003d.doc+ray+dotoratos&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:bi3ZT2y2Cm4J:my.tennessee.edu/pls/portal/url/ITEM/00BD01D7493B69C9E0440003BA562861+ray+dotoratos+university+of+tennessee+knoxville&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (PAGE 5)
 * Don't think Ray Dotoratos or Itzhak perlman or Pinchas Zukerman or Chin Kim or anybody else who graduated from the Julliard School would want you people bothering the school to verify that they attended. Certain editors above seem to be going past their responisilities, and deciding which concerts are more note worthy than others.  That is not editing but making judgements calls that are borderline political.  If so, sad day for Wikipedia. One even "assumed" I am Ray Dotoratos or even know him. Neither are true.  I know of him.Borismule (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. And right there is your problem. You're finding passing mention and simple lists of concerts, not actual reviews of performances. The only thing that even comes close is the tennessee.edu one, which says "world-class violinist Ray Dotoratos", but that's the only mention of him in an article in detail about others that makes zero other reference to him. If that's all you have, you basically support everyone else's point that he's not notable per the standards others have mentioned. DMacks (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed. The definition of significant coverage in the notability guideline specifically excludes "articles that simply report performance dates" and generally excludes "articles in a school or university newspaper" The links above are mentions in lists of artists at performances, a mention in a university newspaper, and a google page showing the above plus some Wikipedia mirrors and Dotoratos' own website. These do not, alas, fit the definitions of either significant coverage or reliable sources. Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Borismule, there is nothing "political" about the criteria for notability or for the requirements that the assertions in an article be referenced to a verifiable, reliable source, which is completely independent of the subject of the article. These requirements apply to all wikipedia biographies, not just this one. The biographical information in concert announcements and concert programs is not independent. It is supplied by the artists or their agent. Note also that perceived or actual conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion if the subject passes the notability and referencing requirements, although COI articles almost invariably need re-writing as they have an inappropriately promotional and/or personally invested tone. I've rescued several articles from AfD which were originally written by the subject, their agent, or someone with a personal connection to them, by adding references and re-writing. In this case it's impossible. There are no references to add, nor is it possible to find any other evidence of notability.


 * We don't have "to bother Juilliard" to verify that he attended. That is not why this article is being proposed for deletion. Simply having graduated from a prestigious music school does not make an artist notable, any more than graduating from Harvard Medical School automatically makes a physician notable. It's true that with classical musicians, significant coverage can sometimes be difficult to find in mainstream publications. In those cases we look for other ways to establish and verify notability. It takes at least one of the following:
 * 1. Credited as a soloist on two recordings with notable classical music labels. These are the results for "Dotoratos" on Amazon and Archiv Music, i.e. zero
 * 2. Played as a soloist (in front of the orchestra) or served as the concertmaster for a major professional orchestra. Neither of these claims are explictly made in the article, let alone referenced. For example, if you go to The New York Philharmonic archives, you can quickly find that Joshua Bell has performed as a "front of orchestra" soloist 11 times between 1990 and 2009. Note that even being first violin, first cellist, etc. in a major orchestra does not qualify on its own. It requires a parallel solo career. In addition, performances with the Juilliard orchestras are not professional engagements. They are made up of the current students. As their site says:
 * Juilliard's performing orchestral ensembles give more than 30 concerts each season at Lincoln Center in the Peter Jay Sharp Theater, Alice Tully Hall and Avery Fisher Hall, as well as in Carnegie Hall and other venues around New York City. Participation in these ensembles provides a solid foundation for instrumentalists hoping to join professional orchestras.
 * 3. Winner of a major music competition. Again, virtually all the major competitions have archives where the prize winners can be verified, e.g., , . So far the article doesn't even assert that Mr. Dotoratos has won a major competition, nor can I find any evidence of that to add to the article. - Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this analysis describes it very well. Cazort (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete; fails V|verifiability, so even though the talent, promise, and musicality of this violinist may be immense, he cannot have an article here by our policies. Borismule, I'm not happy to have to state this, but we have to abide by our own site's policies. I do have a question for you though, which may help: you state that you are neither Ray Dotoratos yourself, nor do you know him, and I'm assuming good faith here and believing you. So -- you wrote the article. You must have a source in order to have made the claim that Mr. Dotoratos's "repertoire encompasses some 65 concertos, 110 sonatas and 214 short works". Where did you get those numbers? You must have had a document we can use as a source. If you only knew of him, but did not know him, you must have had a published source for those numbers. Can you please provide us the link, or the name of the book, periodical, and page number? Thank you most sincerely, Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This AfD seems to be just about a done deal at this moment, but I spent the last quarter hour reading through all this for some ungodly, so I thought I could might as well !vote. The only really relevant policies here are WP:V, WP:RS and this article quite clearly fails both of them. Google News Archives seem to turn up a few results but generally nothing more than him being included among a long line-up of musicians. The only thing of note: is that article that mentions him more than briefly, but it is merely an advertisement for a local seemingly non-notable appearance. The DominatorTalkEdits 07:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DELETION REQUESTED I am citing two examples of inconsistencies made by various Wikipedia “Administrators”.as to why the author of this article now prefers its deletion. Some Administrator’s views claim that they cannot count on Google search for examples to bring forth information to back up information in articles in contrast to other Administrators who are pursuing Google search for information.

Second example is Wikipedia’s choosing to conceal important news worthy events from the public as cited below and on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow’s Show”.

In concluding, I request that this article be deleted as to protect who the article was written about from any further manipulative commentary and negative innuendo by Wikipedia Administrators concerning the article’s content. Other articles about people written by this editor will also hopefully be deleted.Borismule (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=new+york+time+wikipedia+rachael+maddow+David+Rohde+&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.mediabistro.com/Arianna-Huffington-profile.html

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/wikipedia-dabbles-dubious-morals-save-kidnapped-journo Wikipedia and 'The New York Times' Suppress Facts to Save Kidnapped Journo BY Kit EatonMon Jun 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Last week, journalist David Rohde escaped after a seven-month kidnap by the Taliban. It's fabulous news, and it's been partly attributed to the fact that The New York Times suppressed it in the first place. But today we learn that Wikipedia did so too. That raises a couple of very interesting questions. The New York Times worked very hard to keep facts about Rohde's kidnapping out of the media, with the intention of denying the Taliban the media coverage it desired and thus helping Rohde's chances of release or escape. The technique obviously paid off in this case, and it's certainly been done before. But in a Times piece yesterday, the paper also made it clear that it had the help of Wikipedia staffers who suppressed the news popping up there too. Since Wikipedia is crowd-sourced and openly editable, the news did manage to arrive on the online encyclopedia several times, whereupon it was quickly erased and sometimes the offending page was frozen to prevent any further user-editing. Rohde's own Wikipedia entry was even edited by a colleague immediately after his kidnap to enhance the Islam-friendliness of Rohde's previous journalistic work. This information dance on Wikipedia all happened with the specific help of the site's founder, Jimmy Wales. But while commenting on the moral angle of the Wikipedia tampering, Wales noted: "We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source...I would have had a really hard time with it if it had." And that's where this story gets interesting to people who believe in freedom of information: In essence The New York Times suppressed the info themselves, and by influencing other old media outlets, which then enabled the new media outlet of Wikipedia to feel okay about continuing the propagandizing. It's a journalistic moral ouroboros, for sure, and it raises a couple of questions. Did Wikipedia damage its reputation as a crowd-based and open-access information source? The answer is yes, a little (and it's not the first time Wikipedia's admins have been caught manipulating entries). Wikipedia isn't a traditional media outlet, and therefore has no hard or soft journalistic moral code to abide by, which means it can be more flexible in its actions--and the fact a life was at stake here is a mitigating fact. But Wales' excuse still sounds particularly weak. As a result, the next questions about Wikipedia are: What other news pieces is it hiding? And will users trust in the site as a news source take a hit? [via The New York Times] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borismule (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 July 2009
 * Comment, Borismule, are you saying because of the Rohde incident you now want the article about Ray Dotoratos deleted? --RobertG ♬ talk 05:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I think Borismule has just answered this question elsewhere. --RobertG ♬ talk 05:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense, but take it easy will you? Not everything is a conspiracy of the liberal media to destroy the foundations of democracy and ensure the Orwellian oppression of the masses, you know? Sometimes, it's just an article failing a Wikipedia policy... The DominatorTalkEdits 05:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.