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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Reibun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find a notability guideline on Go players, but this person doesn't seem to have notability independent of his father. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: I am not at all familiar with GO, and after reading Wikipedia's own articles on Go professionals, and rankings, I have a better appreciation of it, but it would take some people with subject matter expertise to weigh in on what level of accomplishment would be the tipping point for notability. I've left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Go requesting some assistance. He is verifiably a professional Go player holding a rank of 6th dan as confirmed here, by the Japanese Go association site. Go is not a huge Western sport so I suspect that more general coverage will not be in English. -- Whpq (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A 6 dan professional of Go is on the same level of notability as a chess grandmaster: he or she will be thoroughly documented in newspaper and magazine reports, and biographical details will be available in annual handbooks. I have added three web references, all to reliable sources, including an official page mostly in Japanese. BLP concerns should therefore be satisfied, and this is not an article that should be deleted for any other reason. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: I would argue the same way for most professional players ranked 4 dan or higher. For those who are pro 1 dan to 3 dan, more should be required, in that these levels are in some sense "probationary" by general agreement (I won't go into this, but the best answer I know to the question posed on the tipping point is that 4 dan and above is like chess grandmaster). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but clean up the article and add more references (even if they're not in English). I don't know much about Go, but I trust the assessment above that he's equivalent to a grandmaster in chess.--hkr Laozi speak 08:30, 26 October 2010 (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.