Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez (2nd nomination)

Rolando Gomez

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]

Delete. Sorry, but where's the claim to notability? And the sources? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not properly sourced, probable conflict of interest.--Boffob (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems notable as primarily as author. No doubt a COI, but no outrageous claims are made. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links quoted should be sufficient to establish notability. The article already went through one AFD, how many AFD's do articles go through? I believe there are underlying reasons to the deletion, as stated above, "I was originally directed to this article because of its authorship and questionable content for notability purposes." What does this say for Wikipedia, that those with deletion powers can be biased based on perhaps a stalker, competitor, or jealous person's remarks? Why not post who directed you and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.15.133 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first AFD took place two years ago and was not sufficient in determining whether or not Wikipedia should have this biography. Just because there are a lot of links does not mean this person meets Wikipedia's notability standards. And it does not matter who directed me to look at this article. I cannot remember who, but it was a fellow administrator who felt that there were problems with the article. You seem to have a personal stake in the article's existance on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So how many books, press releases, articles, etc., does it take to meet notability standards? I might add, the books were "not self-published." Amherst Media is a strong publisher in the United States. There are other photographers, with long photography careers, as Gomez with 30-years, yet have never published a book much less made cover story as the cover story itself or written articles for magazines and newspapers. In the article's references, there are many links that support notability standards. Just do a search in Amazon.com, Gomez has written three books and full-chapters have been written on him and his photography techniques by other credible/notable authors. This link alone, *Photo District News Release was for a three country tour in Europe that was advertised in nine photography magazines. Someone obviously decided to make it an acceptable inclusion to Wikipedia two years ago, after the AFD, why conduct another once the AFD status is taken off when the credibility standards were obviously met. I suggest you look at other photographers in Wikipedia within the same genres and compare them as that would subject many world-known photographers from being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.15.133 (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There were limited responses to the previous AFD. And I was not satisfied with the results of it after having been notified of it during the DRV you placed. Consensus changes over time, and I do not believe, as do two other users, that this article belongs on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well you only answered the question about your beliefs about the article. Are those personal or unbiased. After carefully reading the notability requirements on Wikipedia, the sources listed in the links are credible. Again, Gomez is not a self-published author. His first book, received 48 reviews on Amazon.com. There are other notable authors on this site with less than 12. How many books does one need to publish for the credibility of a noted author? How many cover stories does one have done by on them to be credible? How many world-wide tours for one's profession, does an individual have to conduct? I might add, that the referenced PDF above, is carried by Photo District News (PDN) magazine, which is considered as one of the most notable magazines for professionals and related professionals. It's often called the "Wall Street Journal" of photography. Do you seriously think a source such as PDN would carry someone non-credible? Do you think so would Cygnus publications which publishes over 60 trade magazines? Unfortunately biased opinions, without researching the actual sources cited, damage the credibility of those with the power here on Wikipedia. Now that's notable.
Comment I don't think the article should necessarily be deleted, as I think the subject passes WP:N, but the information must be properly sourced, and only information from reliable third-party sources must be used. It would need the Heymann Standard for a keep. Jeremiah (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand The article passed the first AFD, it looks bad if Wikipedia will constantly challenge articles, that have only been updated but not violated any standards. AFD 2nd nomination? What happens after it passes the 2nd? Do we do a 3rd, in two years? Think of the precedence these additional AFD's will cause for additional workload on voting member editors? What are we doing here? Now to answer some proper sourcing, simple "Google" will bring you to see outside source information, like the non-profit, Palm Beach Photographic Center organization, http://www.workshop.org/pages/rolando_gomez_glamour_lighting.html or Imaging Info, http://www.digitalimagingmag.com/publication/article.jsp?id=1477&pubId=2 or http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=65&pageNum=2 and more examples, http://www.glamour1.com/about/tearsheets/rolandogomez.php and http://www.henselusa.com/rolandogomez.html and http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Sep06/showpage.taf?page=24 (the latter a national publication and written by author Michelle Perkins) http://www.lexar.com/dp/pro_photo/rgomez.html (a publicly traded corporation) and http://www.samys.com/newsletters/2007-02-consumer.php (the largest camera store chain in California) and http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0202/lajes.html (U.S. Airforce) to name a few. What more sourcing do you need, his DD214 from the U.S. Army? A copy of his diploma? Would we require everyone in Wiki to send copies of their college diploma's, honorable discharge certificates, birth certificates, etc? I'm sure they could be scanned and provided, but that leads to privacy issues with social security numbers. Thoughts? 74.38.112.174 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]