Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Obviously canvassed votes have been given little weighting; there has been no real response to the concerns about

☄ 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Rolando Gomez

AfDs for this article:
Rolando Gomez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article, authored primarily about its subject, was subject to a previous AFD in July 2006. There, there was no real consensus, as much of the page was flooded by the subject/author's pleas to keep the article. As it stands, the article does not really demonstrate that the subject is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I was originally directed to this article because of its authorship and questionable content for notability purposes. It is time that this autobiographical puff piece be sent into the trash bin.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Unsure how many books he's authored but at least three are here.
    -- Banjeboi 04:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Regardless of my own comment above about assuming good faith, sometimes
    WP:DUCK does apply. You just happened to be looking for the article and stumbled on the deletion discussion. That's convenient (the argument about a reference that "used" to be here, is telling; there's either a campaign or some sockpuppetry happening). Anyway, as for Mr. Gomez's apparent conflict of interest and use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, I've found this interesting tidbit. Rolando Gomez's blog states this: "Also, one of the few photographers listed by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolando_Gomez" which is found here. freshacconci talktalk 10:38, 9 September 2008 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
the Orphanage 15:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Admin note: This was originally closed as Delete by

the Orphanage 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete for lack of reliable sources iaw
    WP:N. It had no sources when written two years ago. It still has no sources. If it were a new article then a pause to allow sources to be found and added would be appropriate but after two years??! So delete now; then if an editor (preferably not the subject) wants to re-create a good article idc, then all well and good. Springnuts (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Funny, "...but after two years" was the same argument of defense on why it was being considered for a "2nd" AfD and now you're using that as a defense after deletion review on why it should not even be looked at again? How ironic this is, or should I say "egg" on Wikipedia's face for even being looked at for a second AfD when it passed the first one, over two years ago. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note before 'voting':' It is more than usually useful to look at old versions of this article, since much of the discussion revolves around what is and what isn't a proper source - and many claimed sources have been removed. Springnuts (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're correct, many claimed "sources" have been removed, but what you failed to say many of these credible sources were removed during the 2nd AfD and thus erroneously influenced a few people to vote for delete as they didn't even have half the facts straight. If the sources had been left to stand, it would have been overwhelmingly a "keep."--74.223.216.130 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced vanity piece about an apparently non-notable person (2 years no notability established by other users; i certainly couldn't find any via google).
    talk) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: Deletion is getting ridiculously out of hand. Why are articles on people getting deleted? This is obviously something someone out there will be interested in. If you don't like it, don't read it.Likebox (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Noticeable: From Zoom In website, "This week's guest is Rolando Gomez, a photojournalist who made the switch to glamour photography a few years back. The author of Garage Glamour, he's the expert on beauty, and shares his insights on getting the most out of a shoot." Podcast interview of Gomez--Jmundo (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep issues raise are editing issues, notability was established on first nomination for deletion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clear keep, perhaps obscured by tangential arguments here and confusion on the page. There are quite enough independent, substantial, third party, reliable sources on Rolando Gomez. For example, a 10-page chapter in this book is on him. There are magazine articles like [7] in the references/EL section in/out of the article, (see talk page), on him which also prove his notability. There's plenty of room for expansion based on reliable and other usable sources.John Z (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A ten page chapter about him in an authoritative book about photographers would certainly be one reliable secondary source - a short chapter written by him in what looks like a non-notable book is not! Springnuts (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the author of the book does not appear to be the subject in question, and since it seems to be written in third person, could you tell me why you feel it was written by him? "Michelle Perkins" appears to have published many books - do you not feel it is a
reliable source? Kuru talk 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - You are sort of right - and I was wrong in that I mistook the chapter heading for a chapter author. But - the chapter is written in the form of an interview, so the content (about three pages of text - the rest is photos) is very largely his own words. There are about ten lines about him on the first page. So it is a source, but not a hugely impressive one. Falls way way short of
WP:CREATIVE. Springnuts (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment And the biography in the same source you are discussing is not written as an "interview" but in Michelle Perkins words. The bio alone is priceless as a credible source. On another note, I like your user page, it's got great resources for deletions. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it's against the law to list on your website that you're listed in Wikipedia? Don't get it, promoting Wikipedia is wrong? Gomez, at least on what I can tell, lists Wikipedia in his three books to photographers, as a great resource. I think someone with such a huge following of fans is positive and proactive toward Wikipedia in providing marketing "FOR" WIkipedia more than himself. As far as your definition for "working photographer," which perhaps you should consider starting a page for here on Wikipedia so we can have a clear definition, perhaps we should ask ourselves how many "working photographers" exist in this world, then trim the list on how many have written three books or more, how many are featured as cover stories on magazines in the U.S. and Europe, how many are Lexar Elite Photographers, how many are Speakers at Photo Plus Expo, how many are speakers at Photo Imaging Design Expo, how many are speakers at FotoFusion, how many are teachers at Julia Dean, how many are teachers at Samy's Camera Digital Photography Institute, how many are speakers at the Palm Beach Photographic Center, how many are featured in other books in chapter length, how many have co-illustrated stories with Pultizer prize winning photographers like Eddie Adams, how many have a distinguished military career, how many documented the drug-war in Central and South America, how many have taught over 300 workshops in the past eight years, how many have gone on 3-country, 7-city European tours for Calument Photographic, how many were featured in Leica World News, how many were featured in Studio Photography magazine, how many are NBA credentialed, etc., etc., and you might find a total of "one." Yep, that' your ordinary working photographer. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maintain our standards about promotional articles and remove puffery. the photographer is sufficiently notable, though it would really help to have some reviews of the books in 3rd party publications. Some of the references in earlier versions were reasonable links, and should be readded. But the argument above in favor of it is an apt illustration of exactly what we do not want in our articles. It is reasonable for an artist to what to promote his work, and there are suitable places for it, but one reason why people use and perhaps trust Wikipedia is because it is not a medium for advertising. if we're not an encyclopedia, why bother--if one wants to see advertising and promotion, Google has us beat. DGG (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a more current version of this article's entry here: User:Miranda/Gomez, [8] that Kuru placed for Miranda to work on, than the current one displayed now. Please keep that in mind as it's more current with more current sources. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is written as a promotional piece and contains no reliable sources that verify notability. The one source given is a podcast and one of the two further reading links says nothing about him. If the gentleman is indeed notable, and reliable sources verifying notability are added to the article (I couldn't find any), I will be happy to reconsider my delete (my personal notability bar is quite low so even one independent source would suffice!). (I also disagree with the reasoning that the article should be kept for the purpose of 'marketing' wikipedia.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You obviously missed the master list of links for notability on this person, there is more than one outside link on notability listed on this master page of links, [9] that can truly help this article. I would also recommend reviewing this discussion for more references: [10] and hit the "show" button on the right to see the full discussion. You might also want to see this link, [11] as it's an older version but has great links --72.191.15.133 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that I don't see a personal website as a credible source (I have one of my own and don't consider myself notable!). What would do it for me is one reliable independent source that says that Mr. Gomez is a notable photographer. AFAIK, every reasonably proficient photographer would have photos published in various magazines, but that does not, by itself, make them notable. I went through
User:Miranda to weigh in on this. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Here are some outside links, Photo District News, considered the "Wall Street Journal" of photography, [12] and [13], Lexar website for their Elite Photographers including Gomez and Jerry Avenaim, Greg Gorman, John Isaac, James B. Dickman, Vincent Laforet, Joe McNally to name a few [14] and [15]. New York Times best-selling author Lisa Kleypas on Gomez, [16] Other links, Zoom-in, [17], PRWeb release, [18], article by Gary Bernstein [19], Danella Lucioni credits Gomez, Podcast [20] by University of Virgin Islands professor Alex Randall [21] and previous podcast [22] hopefully that helps. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt Ok Rolando. First off, the article has not one -- not one -- citation establishing notability from a reliable source. But let's look at the "master list" hosted at your own website. It consists of: 1. A link showing the fact that you took a cover shot once for something called Rangefinder Magazine. 2. A link showing you once took a vaguely soft-pornish picture for something called d-pixx magazine. 3. A link to the wikipedia page for the University of Texas, San Antonio in which you're included on a list of "notable alumni" the citation for this is addtion, made three weeks after you created your vanity page ([[23]], is of course your vanity page. Discursive establishment of notability is a no-no. 4. Advertised as an article about your military career by someone called Alice Miller. Click link... whoops! It's five paragraphs of first person text about yourself, written by you, to accompany two photos of your carried on something called studio photograph & design. 5. A link to a brief article about yourself in "Leicaworld" magazine, which is funded by the camera company and used to advertise it's products. Money quote from the article: "Another thing that's essential is having a camera that's solid as a rock, confidence inspiring and dependable. That's why I chose the Leica with Digital-Modul-R to shoot my first Playboy Playmate submission. It has exactly what a photograph needs to do the job (advertorial copy about how Leicas cure cancer, make you better looking and get the weeds our of your lawn goes on and on." 6. A link that documents you had 3 pictures in parade magazine. 7. Links to your how-to books for Amherst Media, which may or may not be a vanity press, but specializes only in photographic how to manuals. 8-10. Links showing you spoke at photography conventions. 11. A link showing that he did a book signing and seminar giving tour to promote his how-to books. 12. A link showing he was once credentialed to take pictures at an NBA game AND...zzz.... Actually i give up. The list goes on and on. All i can say with certainty is that the first 12 links on the "master list"=Epic Fail when it comes to establishing notability as per bio, artist, etc... and none of them approach acceptable as a reliable source for anything. Also, and this is just a personal opinion that has no relevance on the status of this article, Mr. Gomez is a shlockmeister of the first order, whose photos of quasi hot chicks are as predictable as his military shots are static.
    talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Rolando - Who cares about the nature of your assignements for speciality photo mags, parade, et al? I believe you took the shots (it's not hard to believe after looking at them.). But all that does is verify you're an at least occasionally-working pro photographer. An honorable profession. Good on ya. But using this to establish notability would be akin to Jim the Carpenter submitting pictures of cabinets he made as evidence for his notability and the non-deletion of a vanity/advertising piece about him.
talk) 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment First, Parade, listed here in Wikipedia, [24]) is, and I quote Wiki, "PARADE is a national Sunday newspaper magazine, distributed in more than 400 newspapers in the United States. It was founded in 1941 and is owned by Advance Publications. The most widely read magazine in America, Parade has a circulation of 32 million and a readership of 71 million." This was a cover-story assignment co-illustrated with Pulitzer Prize photographer Eddie Adams, also here on Wikipedia. Gomez is a full-time working professional photographer. In 1994, during the Combat Camera workshop in Ft. Meade, where to be accepted you had to be one of the top 25 photographers in U.S. Military just to attend, several notable photographers, including James Nachtwey, Bernie Boston, Eli Reed [25], Mary Lou Foy, and others selected Gomez as one of the top-five military photographers in the world that year. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't comment on Mr. Gomez's style or abilities as a photographer, but I do thank
    WP:CREATIVE. freshacconci talktalk 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment User Bali Ultimate obviously has a biased perception, please look at the rebuttal to his 1-12 links expose and you'll see he was totally wrong in his "assumptions" about the links and did not properly state the facts. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are three how-to books authored by Gomez, all top-sellers on Amazon.com and the first had 50 reviews. These are not chapters, but 25,000 words in each book. Not vanity press either. And since you're from Toronto, Gomez has taught four seminars/workshops in Toronto in the past, all sold-out appearances. Lexar, listed here on Wikipedia, selected 30 photographers around the world to represent them six years ago and updates that list annually, Gomez, Gorman and Avenaim, the latter two listed here on Wikipedia with that as one of the source links, were all and still are from the group of the original 30 selected world-wide. We cannot use one link to others here on Wikipedia and then state it's not credible for another. If it is a credible link for Gorman and Avenaim the same should be for Gomez. The appearance I see here, is the genre of photography is being judged. If a notable photographer shoots glamour, it's a negative, if the same photographer shoots celebrities, it's a positive. I think this link, [26] shows more than what a typical photographer accomplishes. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt Rolando: You're the liar, not I. I clicked the links and have described what i saw accurately. I invite anyone uncertain on who to believe to investigate for themselves. And of COURSE i'm biased against your photography; i've looked at it.
    talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Ok, I lied. Rolando, I missed this bit: "There are three how-to books authored by Gomez, all top-sellers on Amazon.com." Authors of 3 best selling books are by definition notable. Just give us the links proving best selling authorship, and i'll happily change my vote (I still think your pictures are lousy, but as i said, not relevant to the matter at hand).

talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

*to clarify. The author has not written a single verifiable best seller, let alone three. Pity. Would have changed my position. (though i love the "hourly" bit).
talk) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
On another matter, may i ask the IP why he continues to edit referring to "Gomez" as if he is not, in fact, Gomez himself? I note this edit of his [[30]] states that he is gomez. I guess one is allowed to write, and advocate for, articles about oneself, but it seems at the very least a little misleading.
talk) 03:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't pretend that's not bugging the hell out of me. :) Kuru talk 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is used by more than one computer. A known fact, many "creatives" use "co-ops" for many things. My apologies for the confusion. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rolando: Are you telling us that the IP that vociferously canvasses for the obscure non-notable Rolando Gomez and feeds a bunch of hooey about the "subjectivity" of best seller lists, mischaracterizes sources, and is trying to use walls of text to confuse an afd debate, and which recently self-identified on Kuru's talk page as Rolando Gomez, is not in fact Rolando Gomez? Either way, the conflict of interest, your relentless canvassing, etc... is pathetic. As to best seller lists and what otherwise makes a book notable; there is no subjectivity. There are clear guidelines for book notability[[31]]. Your books, Rolando (aka ip 72.191.xxx) are VERIFIABLY non-notable as per wikipedia standards. Not even close.
talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Bali, you obviously "have it out for Gomez," and no one ever said the books were being tested for "notability." In fact 95-percent of all photography books over the past 25 years would not meet Wikipedia "notability" standards. You mentioned they were not bestsellers, the only issue discussed was where they best-selling or not? That point has been proven, at least two are verifiable as best-selling photography books. You love to veer off into many tangents. You are living proof, with all your comments and posts on this subject as the type of Wikipedian who loves editwaring. Obviously you're not an admin and will never be one with that type of attitude. You should try filling out your user page so we can see what you really are besides an anti-Gomez stalker. You obviously have a vendetta and proof is in your statements here and your own questionable deletionist comments list history. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rolando - none of your books are best sellers. Your latest book was ranked when i looked 16,000 at Amazon. According to this [32] that means you were selling at that moment in time at a rate of 12 copies a week.
talk) 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdent. Chill, both of you please. Bali ultimate, wether or not the anons are/ or are related to Gomez we need to be welcoming and no one is falling for voluminous assertions instead of actual reliable sources. To the anon(s), if your interest is improving the article you can post reliable sources to the talkpage of the article. At this point all else is just white noise that will be disregarded and repeatedly posting will generally hurt this process and possibly get you banned.

-- Banjeboi 00:01, 11 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rolando_Gomez_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1144628633"