Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toru Goto (religious persecution)

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 delete. JForget 00:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toru Goto (religious persecution)

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

Not sourced. He is said to be a victim of kidnapping and other crimes by his family members. This may be true but without reliable sources that amounts to a personal attack against them, not allowed by WP:BLP. Redddogg (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only reliable source that has turned up to date is a bare mention in the German edition of a Baltic States newspaper. {{find}} does not appear to turn up any relevant hits (let alone relevant hits to reliable sources), but vast numbers of irrelevant ones. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this could be a personal attack on his family members since their names are not mentioned. At best it is an allegation that remains unproved in court. I interviewed Goto personally for three hours in Japan, so at least I can vouch that he makes these allegations. As I mentioned somewhere else, I'm willing to edit the article to ensure that any disputed facts are stated as allegations only. I'd appeal to those arguing for deletion to watch the video about his case at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1GPUTJUUZo . The photos there by the Japanese journalist K Yonemoto verify that Goto was seriously abused. Yonemoto himself has been a strong critic of the Unification Church in Japan but recently began writing against deprogramming. His book Our Displeasing Neighbors: Tragedies of Women “Saved” from the Unification Church was published by Joho Center Publishing (6/29/08). It was published just around the time that Goto was released, and Yonemoto took the pictures at the hospital where Goto was being treated. I am in the process of obtained permission to use them in the article. I will check to see if he or other non-UC journalists have published articles about Goto's case. Dan Fefferman (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Your interview is unpublished WP:OR (as well as being WP:PRIMARY), so not suitable. Likewise Youtube is not a reliable source. As Yonemoto's book does not mention Goto, it likewise does not confer any notability on him. (ii) You have a WP:COI on this topic, so should not be participating in this deletion discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their names don't have to be mentioned. However if more published sources are found then no problem if the article only reports what they (the sources) say, and it is shown that Mr. Goto's case is indeed important. Redddogg (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Also agree with analysis above by Hrafn (talk · contribs) and Redddogg (talk · contribs). The whole thing appears to be an excuse for a POV WP:COATRACK, not a good use for a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is one of the worst individual cases of religious persecution in recent history. The difficulty in getting references should not be an excuse for censoring the information. Just leave it tagged, while we all work on it. Please do not hold UC-related articles to a higher standard than fluff like popular culture, just because you personally disagree with the church. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic rebuttal: requiring WP:Notability is not WP:CENSORship (as has been pointed out to you a number of times in the past). Pretending otherwise is a violation of WP:AGF. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for highlighting pet cases. Kindly restrict yourself to the applicable notability guidelines: WP:GNG & WP:BIO, which you have completely failed to address. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely - I said, "one of the worst individual cases of religious persecution in recent history". That makes it notable, to all those readers who regard persecution as worthy of note. If you personally don't regard persecution as noteworthy, you should withdraw from this discussion per WP:COI. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Poor (talk · contribs), once again, WP:GNG & WP:BIO are the guidelines here, not whether someone's personal opinion is or is not that they "regard persecution as noteworthy", which seems to be an artificial construct created by you, in the absence of consideration of WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Numerous cases of religious persecution resulting in death (e.g. death penalties for apostasy) are arguably worse "individual cases of religious persecution in recent history". In any case this does not constitute addressing any notability guideline (which generally require reliable sources to back them up). Your implication that I "personally don't regard persecution as noteworthy" is WP:Complete bollocks. Likewise your conclusion that, even if I did hold this opinion, that it would constitute WP:COI is WP:Complete bollocks. Ed Poor, you have (i) failed to address any notability guideline, (ii) failed to raise any reliable source that might have relevance to these guidelines & (iii) engaged in a litany of baseless and uncivil accusations having no relevance to this AfD. Your comments are thus without merit or weight & amount to little more than 'spitting the dummy' at the fact that this article is almost certain to be deleted, by almost-unanimous consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Article can be always recreated when notability has been established and all controversial accusations properly sourced.--Staberinde (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and a BLP nightmare. ukexpat (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above, and the fact that no reliable sources seem to be available in Japanese either, just a bunch of blogs and similar internet flotsam [1]. (I don't consider this article in the Sekai Nippo as a reliable source --- for those who don't know, it's basically the Japanese equivalent of The Washington Times: [2]). cab (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No legitimate sources Czolgolz (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I nominated the article for deletion because of its lack of sources. I don't have any reason to question the accuracy of Mr. Goto's story. In fact I suspect it to be true. Redddogg (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. I clicked on the link for the one citation given and it doesn't even mention Goto's name. Unless someone can find multiple reliable sources to establish notability, it should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Could someone kindly clarify for me if there is really a rule that a person is barred from discussing the question of deletion if they are alleged to have a conflict of interest? Specifically, are members or a religious group not allowed to enter to discussions on articles relating to those groups? Dan Fefferman (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Catholics are allowed to edit articles on the Pope, Democrats on President Obama, etc. Redddogg (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this comment by Hrafn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Members" would probably not be a problem, senior officials (such as yourself), would. As Redddogg says "Democrats on President Obama" wouldn't be a problem" -- but Obama editing on the Democrats would. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is also possible that WP:BLP1E would apply here as well. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan's participation'. Regarding Hrafn's comment, I'm not challenging his assertion that I could be considered to have a conflict of interest. I'm asking about whether it's true as Hrafn asserts above that I "should not be participating in this deletion."Dan Fefferman (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,' but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution, when: … Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors" -- WP:COI

- Thanks for this clarification. So the policy is that I may participate in the discussion if I exercise great caution. I will continue to do so. Dan Fefferman (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was "avoid, or exercise great caution" (my emphasis) -- with the clear inference of a preference for you to avoid doing so altogether. Hence also my original wording of "should not be participating", not "must not…". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that the initially presented reference sources have been sifted through and dismissed as irrelevant, this article has no reliable sources to support the claims made, and it does appear to be a WP:BLP1E case as well. --DAJF (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2009 (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.