Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.38.112.174 (talk) at 14:43, 7 September 2008 (→‎Rolando Gomez). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rolando Gomez

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

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.
          • I too think Ryūlóng should answer the questions proposed above, not just with the generic I deleted because not satisfied. If you look at this link, *Lexar Elites from a publicly traded corporation, the 30 original Lexar Elite photographers include those listed on Wikipedia like Jerry Avenaim, Greg Gorman, Joe MacNally, Jay Dickman, Nick Vedros, John Isaac, Lynn Goldsmith and others. Some of the non-original elites included on the Lexar list are Lauren Greenfield and James Nachtwey just to name a few. Gomez made that list over six years ago. Now, since those on that list are listed here as notable, why not Gomez? Doesn't make sense, if a company traded on the Stock Exchange can honor Gomez with Elite status as a photographer, what does that say about Wiki, that personal agendas can override the same criteria used to place others on the Lexar list here as notable but not Gomez. Yes, Lexar doesn't determine who makes Wiki, but do you think they would add someone like Gomez if he's not as notable or to par as the others? Please keep in mind, the article on Gomez went through one AFD, and after careful scrutiny it passed and he has since published two more books and featured in two other books plus other numerous accomplishments. Why throw away the efforts of previous editors on Wikipedia? Why not answer all the questions. I personally believe a request for second nomination for AFD does more harm than a more proactive, "How can I help to better improve this entry?" I do believe that rescue efforts should be made first, than just deleting an article outright without discussion because you were alerted and didn't like it? Isn't the words didn't like biased for personal reasons? This is sad that a Wiki editor with deletion powers would not be proactive and instead trigger happy with the delete key. Obviously your mind is made up without true research of the credible sources on this topic, that are third party. 74.38.112.174 (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    • I agree, see *Lexar Elites as just one of many examples for credible sources--this is from a publicly traded corporation on the Stock Exchange that honored Gomez with "Elite" status over six years ago along with other notable photographers listed on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.112.174 (talk) 05:44, 7 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]
  • Keep I am appalled at the inputs questioning the integrity of Rolando Gomez in reference to the information listed on Wikipedia. I have known Rolando for almost 10 years. I am very familiar with his background, experience and achievements and I have seen his official DD Form 214 listing his military time in service, awards and decorations. I can also confirm that he earned his bachelor’s degree in communication and electronic media while working at the Air Force News Agency in San Antonio and his selection as the agency’s 1997 senior-level civilian of the year. Rolando worked for me as chief of multimedia at the agency and it was a great loss to the Air Force when he decided to leave the agency to pursue his current endeavors. He is now one of the top glamour photographers in the country, an exceptional speaker and a noted author on the subject of glamour photography. I served 26 years in the Air Force as a combat photographer in Vietnam and public relations officer in Saudi Arabia during operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield, and I am upset over innuendos besmirching the career of a fellow military veteran. I do not know if those commenting have any military experience, but if they do, they know that military records are official government documents and Rolando can provide any documentation of his military and civilian achievements to squelch these malicious comments. I still work at the agency as an Air Force civilian employee in senior management and proud to serve beside military service members and civilian employees like Rolando. -- Jeff Whitted, deputy for public affairs operations [jeff.whitted(at)afnews.af.mil] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please understand that the questioning of this article is not in regards to "the integrity of Rolando Gomez in reference to the information listed on Wikipedia." The issue is whether there are enough available third-party sources (see WP:N and WP:V) that can allow an editor to write an article without performing any original research. Jeremiah (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This IP has already commented on this discussion, and it appears that all individuals who are using it have a vested interest in whether or not the article remains on Wikipedia. The IP who brought the article to DRV is the same who said this article should be kept here, and now it was said twice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you are accusing the Deputy for Public Affairs Operations for the Air Force News Agency, who left his "military" email address for further contact as someone with "vested interest?" That is a personal attack that deserves and apology. If a former superior (boss) came to bat for subordinate, what does that say about the character of both individuals? Obviously a positive response should be made, not negative. The individual identified himself, the IP is from the Time Warner Cable Network, also known as Roadrunner, which has many people from the San Antonio area who use their services, not just one computer. The IP is not the computer IP, but the provider's IP. I'm sure TW doesn't assign one IP per customer in a city with over one million people. Naturally, if you do further research you'll see Gomez and the Air Force News Agency both reside in San Antonio. Now we're splitting hairs when all anyone has to do is follow numerous links, of third party's, posted here, on the Wiki page and more and come to a sensible conclusion that there are enough credible sources for notability in Wiki. This is a no brainer, just like the first time it went before AFD and passed! C'mon, why are wasting valuable resources for an article that has resided on Wikipedia for over two years and has had linkbanks that have generated valuable traffic to Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read the structure for Deletion on Wiki, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. Some of the more common ones include...." Also, did you notice it doesn't meet anything listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion 74.38.112.174 (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone who personally knows the subject is going to have a vested interest in keeping this article on Wikipedia, which does not care about ad revenue or linking. The article simply was a list of external links and works that this individual has done, and neither this or the previous AFD discussion seem to be proving whether or not this individual is in any way notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. He may have publications, but so do others. What makes this one person more important than other photographers/authors is whether or not they have been mentioned in non-biased third party media, such as a newspaper article about his work, a review of his work on a major website, or other similar items. Because the bulk of the "references" that were there didn't tell us much of anything about the individual except "Gomez worked here," or "this is one of his 4 official websites" does not show me, someone who has never seen his work, whether or not he is a notable individual. The first time this went to AFD, there was barely any consensus on whether or not this article should be kept. It defaulted to "keep" essentially. If anyone was to edit this article to remove all of the unreferenced items (those without inline citations) we would just have the first sentence of the article, if all of it.
        • And, it strikes me as odd that the Deputy for Public Affairs Operations for the Air Force News Agency has the exact same IP address as the other anonymous editor who is arguing that this article should not be deleted. Also, the bulk of text on this page is now from you (the user of 74.38.112.174) and that is really unnecessary for this debate, and will likely result in another lack of consensus because it is already extremely difficult to read through this page because there are multiple bullet points from you to several other users. I've made my statement, as it was the initial reasoning of the deletion: There are no independent sources that show that this individual is in anyway notable for inclusion on Wikipedia as a biography.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it strikes you odd, and he is in fact the Deputy of Public Affairs, Operations for "the military Air Force News Agency," then why not email him? Do you think he's not a credible source, yet he can be a top executive/senior officer of the United States Air Force News Agency? Hmmm, how strange? Again, his email is posted, I'm sure not only did he have access to his military records, allow him to attend college for his degree, but like all military veterans, the military does look after it's own, I call that respect, not a vested interest. I thought this is a forum to discuss why or why not to delete, but then you question that? The facts from third parties are all evident, not only to include the military, but links to sources such as this, http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=1261&pageNum=3 and all the others provided. I don't get it, how many sources do you need? How much info to make an article credible? No where does it say the sources have to be on the Internet--heck, you're talking about a senior exec from a government run news agency and yet you choose to say that's not credible? Sad again. Funny, you rely on reports from reporters, most reporters don't hesitate to make phone calls or emails. Seems like a double standard here.74.38.112.174 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP also left his email address from the Air Force News Agency, where he's the Deputy for Public Affairs Operations should anyone wish to contact him. As far as third-party resources, I think that makes him an available third-party, or do third-party resources have to be from the Internet only? I might add, there are enough links to Samy's Camera, Amherst Media, Julia Dean Photo School, Photo District News Press Release (PDF), Imaging Info (Cygnus Publications), Amazon.com, Lexar Media, Hensel USA, California Sunbounce, Rangefinder Magazine, Palm Beach Photographic, all on line. All mention his prior history, achievements, accolades, etc., etc., there are even ISBN numbers for three of his books, what more do editors need? Not to mention the first AFD was successful when in fact the editors helped clean up the original article and ruled that it was acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should now recommend {{Rescue}} as specified in the rescue article, "Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." 74.38.112.174 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources means that this article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rolando_Gomez_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=236869468"