Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryu Goto (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ryu Goto
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Two years ago this article was kept at AFD. Since then, there has really been no progress in the page other than intermittent updates of the subject's discography. This page has been unreferenced for over two years, with one reference being his website and the other being a news article announcing a performance of his. I do not see this qualifying for WP:MUSIC or our general notability guidelines. In addition, most of the page was a copyvio off of his official website (and is repeatedly being added back by a user). The most notability he has is by being the brother of Midori, but her notability is questionable and I have put her page up for AFD.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This was the article prior to my blanking of all copyrighted and paraphrased content.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No references, not even on his discography. Violates the policy on notability. Unless there is a previous version to revert to, I'm sticking with delete from now on. Minima  c  ( talk ) 05:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While I can always understand the concerns of legitimacy and detail for any Wikipedia entry, I do believe that in this case, the person putting up both Ryu Goto and Midori Goto's pages for AfD completely wrong is both counts, and frankly is abusing the ability of people to edit Wikipedia entries. A quick search of the web seems to confirm he has a pattern of just this sort of abuse, with little or no real justification. As to the level of notability of either Ryu Goto or Midori Goto, this is not subject to debate. Both Ryu Goto and Midori Goto are among the top classical violinists of their respective generations, with numerous CDs, DVDs, endorsements and major concerts and tours to their credit, not to mention a large, growing following of fans. Arbitrary AfDs by people with an agenda beyond good editing of Wikipedia articles are to the detriment of the general public, and to the detriment of those of us attempting to ensure the honest, true and legitimate posting of basic biographies of known public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
 * Whatever you read about me on these other websites that you talk about is not true. And you were adding a copy-pasted portion of Ryu Goto's biography from his website (all of it in fact) in all of your edits to the article that were not removing the AFD tag or other tags on the page. Neither Ryu nor Midori are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The fact that their pages have remained on this project for so long is an oversight on our part.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, you're simply wrong, and I think you should consider carefully your choice of words as you don't speak for all of Wikipedia. In any event, I'm escalating this entire dialog to others on Wikipedia who are in a far better position than you to be fair arbiters as to the notability of either Ryu or Midori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
 * That is what this page is for. To let the community decide whether or not the page should be deleted. And as someone with an emotional (or economic) attachment to the subjects of these articles, you are no better an "arbiter" that you phrase for the inclusion of these two biographies. And please remember to sign your comments and do not change the comments of others. There was a 13 minute break in time between my last edit and yours. There was no reason for you to have undone all of my edits between my addition of your comment here and my last edit.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, other than issues of bad referencing, which are eminently fixable, explain why you think neither Ryu or Midori are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. What are your credentials in classical music? Or, on a broader basis, what is your argument based on? My probity or interest doesn't change the fact that both are known public figures in classical music, and you are doing them, Wikipedia and their fans a disservice by arbitrarily locking up their entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that we have nothing to show that they are notable within their fields. That is the onus of inclusion, and both of these pages do not meet it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is simply silly, Ryulong. A simple look at their websites proves their work, their fan bases.  If you care enough to AfD you should care enough to do your research.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs) 07:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can have a website and anyone can have a fan base. We don't have a page for every single garage band from MySpace, and we shouldn't have a page on every single classical violinist.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * you again refer to "we," which is disingenuous. I'm not sure if you have an issue with Ryu because he happens to have a name similar to your user name, but the fact is, when, like Ryu, you are debuting at Carnegie Hall, you consistently chart as one of the top ten classical artists in east Asia and the EU, are the spokesperson for Japan Railways and had a ten-year running reality TV show based on your life on a major Japanese network, you're famous.  That's reality.  And its pretty basic that you should be able to have your basic Wikipedia entry unencumbered by the efforts of one single editor who knows nothing of classical music.  You are only being counterproductive at this point. Mark Frieser 07:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Mark  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
 * Obviously when I say "we" or "our" I refer to the Wikipedia project as a whole. Also, your accusation that I want to get the page deleted because both his name and my pseudonym are similar is a ridiculous thought. This should not be an issue that you keep harping on. And nothing at all on either page suggests that either of them are celebrities of world renown. They are unreferenced biologies of living persons which are the worst articles possible on Wikipedia. Knowing anything about the subject of an article does not prevent me from saying it should be deleted based on how the article looks or removing a complete copyright violation that you have put onto the page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, you have made me feel less that I am dealing with an editor and more like someone from the 1990's newsgroup alt.flame. Why do I say this?  Frankly you would never have seen this if you did not have a flag on every time that there was a "Ryu" reference.  I don't think you like his name, and a result you not only marked his page for deletion, but you did the same for his sister, who's page has never had an issue on Wikipedia.  This makes it seem like you have a personal agenda and are not being objective.  That may not be the case, but I'm sure you could see it could be construed that way. That notwithstanding, if there is an issue with references and copyvio - this is certainly something that can be easily fixed. In any case, I'm done arguing with you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
 * What utter bullshit. You are new to this encyclopedia, so clearly you should take a close look at WP:AGF and other policies. The only thing that's remotely true about your statement is the fact that the only reason I was notified of this article's existance is because I got notified in the IRC recent changes feed when someone (you) added a large amount of content to a page with "Ryu" in the title (which was all copyrighted). I am not seeking to get this page deleted because it has "Ryu" in the title. I'm seeking to get it deleted because the man is not notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I fucked up with sending Midori's article to AFD and that's been fixed.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, I may be new to the editorial process on Wikipedia, but you brought a nuke to a fistfight when you AfD'd Ryu's entry, as well as that of Midori (which there was no excuse to AfD whatsoever). It is a ham-fisted abuse of Wikipedia policy, and you know it.  Argue all you want, but that's the simple fact.  Also, there's not need to get into name calling and expletives.  Why you didn't just request additional references, or a rewrite is beyond me. Also, as has been amply proven and debated here, your probity in regards to Ryu's notability in the Classical music field has been amply repudiated.  As to the copyvio, why didn't you contact me?  Perhaps I had permission to use it... but instead you decided an AfD was the best course of action.  --Mark Frieser 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)


 * Delete: Despite the protestations above, no evidence has been put forward that this meets the notability guidelines. No new sources have been introduced. We are not disputing they exist; what we need is reliable, secondary coverage. If you cannot provide that, we cannot retain the article. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 07:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per PeterSymonds Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 09:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per PeterSymonds. Eusebeus (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I have tried for the past half hour to source this article and find myself frustrated by paywalls, article abtracts that don't quite get to the part where he is mentioned, and numerous other obstacles. Does that prove he is non-notable?  Hard to say.  For now, all I can offer is an abstract from an article in The Spectator in 2000  and an article from Taiwan Times .  Whether thay are enough to establish notability is hard to say.  It compicates matters that he present version of the article is copyvio, also.  On balance, because of the strict policy regarding BLPs, this artilce probably ought to be deleted.  It can always be recreated in a few years time when he gains far wider international recognition  --Jubilee♫ clipman  11:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering - sources added by other editors have started to verify the facts stated in the article and some of those facts do seem to suggest some notability, viz: "He has played internationally with the London Symphony, the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, the Shanghai Philharmonic, and the National Symphony in Washington, D.C." However, many non-notable performers perform with famous orchestras at some point in their career, so we need more yet, IMO.  BTW, the fact that his sister is world-renowned is irrelevent: WP:NOTINHERITED  --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - article now sourced enough to satify WP:SIGCOV, WP:MUSIC, and almost any other notability standard you care to throw at it. Hats off to Nuujinn who not only sourced the article but also massively expanded it in the process of rewriting it entirely  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone here - what the issue is from my perspective is not whether there is notability established at this point, but whether it could be - and I quote the notability guidelines: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present." Though editors subsequent to Ryulong have posted their findings, I do not believe their search of articles and sitings were extensive enough to warrant a notability challenge.  For example - a search of "Ryu Goto violin press" on Google brings back more than 2,370 entries, the vast majority of which are press, so I'm at a loss as to why others here can only find two references in the press.  In any case, as this article was not a final draft, and was in the midst of revisions, I believe it was premature to flag for deletion.  Moreover, the fact of that matter is, unless evidence is provided to the contrary, that none of the editors above could be considered experts in the realm of classical music, which, by default, should disqualify said editors from having any final decision as to the notability of the subject matter or the subject.  Certainly, the need for more references, sources, fixing copyvio are all valid points in terms of edits needed, and these changes will be made to this article.  That said, there has been little proof that any of the editors suggesting deletion could be considered experts on classical music, and as a result are unqualified to judge the notability of any classical artist.12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Mark  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs)
 * Eusebeus and I are experts: that I can 100% assure you of. I am the coordinator for the Contemporary music project and have a degree in music.  Eusebeus is heavily involved in many CM projects and is highly respected by those projects.  I never said I could not find articles: I said that I was unable to find articles that I could actually read.  And my vote was only "weak".  Provide 3 or 4 independent reliable sources from the 2,370 you mentioned and we might get somewhere.  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  13:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't two thousand sources: It's two hundred -- if you're looking for this person's name ("Ryu Goto") instead of any page containing two other people, one named "Ryu ___" and the other named "___ Goto", and if you bother to click through to the end, instead of assuming that the notoriously inaccurate estimate is right.  A gnews search provides exactly one hit, to a borderline source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourced by magic... I want in on the secret!  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment This is a tempest in a teacup, I ask that everyone please take a pause for the cause. I do not believe that expertise is a required attribute to ascertain notability. I spent about five minutes and found a half dozen promising freely accessible articles. I do not think this fellow is very notable, but I do think he meets the threshold and have begun rewriting the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a good point: the requirement is to be able to source not to be able to criticise his interpretation of Sibelius' Violin Concerto or whatever. That said, I'll dig around some more.  We still have 6 days, after all, as the article was only nom'ed early this morning (UTC)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  13:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we certainly have time. I took a quick pass, added some text and a few inline citations and a few external links that have some promise--it's rough since I'm in a hurry to get out today, but a start.... --Nuujinn (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will do my part for providing sourced information and articles that will provide unbiased information, including a discography, TV/Film appearances, etc. I'll follow your lead on this Nuujinn. - Mark  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconic (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep. PeterSymonds says it well. AfD is a simple equation really: if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, the article should be deleted. That equation is a logical consequence of an encyclopaedia that strives for verifiability and accuracy. I can be convinced to change my mind by the sourcing, but at this stage, deletion appears warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are all reasonably familiar with the usual standard; the question is whether sufficient sources exist. The article currently cites eleven independent reliable sources.  Is that enough for you?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks for calling me out on that mistake; I'd watchlisted this and when I returned hadn't noticed the improvements. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hi everyone". I want to thank all of your for your diligence and assistance on this entry.  I am somewhat a n00b in terms of the submitting and writing of Wikipedia articles, so I would like to ask your forgiveness and patience for any mistakes on my part.  later today, I am going to attempt - in the right way - to add more sources, content, etc. to the Ryu Goto entry, and I welcome your input and comments as I want to work with all of you to ensure that this entry is as relevant to Wikipedia as possible and meets Wikipedia editing standards.  Thank you again.  --Mark Frieser 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Disconic (talk)
 * All help is welcome! The sweep I made was to find news sources and I only added enough prose to act as a framework for that. In particular, I think more coverage on critical reception of his work is needed, and that falls well outside my area of expertise. Also, more biographical data would help. If you want some time uninterrupted to work on the article, I might suggest using the Guild of Copy Editors in use template to mark the article, that can help us keep each other out of our hair. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nuujinn! I believe I can provide the biographical data and the critical reception links as I do have some primary sources for this. I will do as you have suggested on the "GOCE in use" template later today (I am not going to get back to this until the afternoon my time). --Mark Frieser 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Disconic (talk)


 * Keep The article meets WP:MUSIC (criteria 1, 4, 5). I do not understand the arguments given above where it's stated that the article was "unreferenced" or that there were no references given. This was blatantly false. At the time this article was nominated for AfD, there were two references. Neither were probably enough to establish notability as per Wikipedia guidelines, but both gave indications of his stature in the classical music world, and should have been clues that other sources are out there (I mean, how many folks are there with the credentials of undertaking worldwide soloist tours with major orchestras and are signed to Deutsche Grammaphon?). And lo and behold, a few minutes of research gave up http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22ryu+goto%22&cf=all, which includes reviews from the Washington Post, LA Times, among other major newspapers (someone with LexisNexis/ProQuest access will probably have to add those) as well as http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=982743&lang=eng_news from Taiwan's version of the AP, which speaks to his fame in Japan. This is clearly a case where this article deserves improvement, rather than the hammer of AfD. I would hope that in the future, the nominator spend a little more time doing research before bringing articles to AfD. TwilligToves (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In all fairness, I haven't found many reviews, most of the articles that mention him are also announcing that he will play, and don't describe how he played--we need more of that. And when the article was nominated, there was only one valid reference, the other was to his own web site. The nominator did wikipedia a service by bringing a neglected article to our attention, so we should continue bringing the article up to a better level. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Being mentioned do to his violin playing skill and age in major news sources, makes the person notable.  D r e a m Focus  15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per those above - article has undergone considerable improvements which serve well in establishing the subject's notability. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 04:50, 10 April 2010 (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.