Jump to content

Talk:Rolando Gomez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.191.15.133 (talk) at 12:06, 18 December 2008 (→Military overview). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Multidel

Here are some external links, for the convenience of those trying to improve the article. Some of them clearly belong in the main article.

References

An assesment of some of Mr. Gomez claims to notability: 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 (12, 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.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC

Embarking on re-write to conform with various policies

The article is filled with uncited information, editorial comments, unverifiable claims from reliable sources, etc... I'm going to try to improve and bring it within guidelines. At the moment, it's only source is a podcast of an interview with subject (who is also the primary author and editor of this article).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gomez wrote in his own wiki page that he was named one of the Military's top 5 photographers in 1994. I was able to find the press release for the DOD's "Photog of the year" for 1994. Here it is: [1]. It names the winner (not gomez). Makes no mention of a top five and couldn't find any such mention anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gomez wrote "He is credited with the discovery of a Penthouse Pet, Jana Adams (October 1986) and Playboy Playmate, Holley A. Dorrough (April 2006), plus six models for Playboy Special Editions." No citations for this that i could find. Also, Madison Avenue used to be filled with guys who claimed "I was the one who came up with 'I should have a V-8.' Claims of "discovering" this or that thing or person need some sort of citation from a reliable source.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with the rewrite. It still doesn't conform, as notability is not established, doesn't have a single reliable source, etc... but that's an argument for why this article shouldn't exist, and that's what AfD is for. As it stands now, stripped out a lot of the hyperbole, explained why claims for which there are no reliable sources can't be here in the edit summaries.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On fairness of mentioning they have the same publisher

John: The entire article is unverifiable, none reliably sourced, etc... I agree that it might reflect "primary research" -- definitely not synth though -- to point out that both she and the subject are in business with the same entity but, well, by that standard it's ALL original research (all the sources are either to Gomez or to people Gomez is in business with) and the article should be stubbified forthwith. Since Perkins is being used in an effort to establish notability (which is a violation of policy) at the very least we should point out the business relationship. This is from WP:BIO:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with much of the above - see the AfD. The statement about Perkins is clearly OR by synth. It is a wild stretch and a very weak and unusual argument to suggest Perkins having the same publisher as Gomez implies that he is in business with her, or to impugn the credibility of such a source with no basis that I can see. There is no violation of policy by using Perkins to establish notability, as no lack of independence or business relationship has been shown, and I and many others believe that the book is a clear proof of notability. I strongly suggest you rewrite the last sentence in section 1.1 above, because of BLP concerns. Just because someone may self-promote, even on wikipedia, and use bad AfD arguments and sources does not imply non-notability.John Z (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are both in business with Amherst. That's neither original research or synth. I'll put it and cite that. As for AfD, that establishes nothing other than whether or not an article will be deleted (a succesful afd does not become an argument to support sourcing in violation of policy, for instance.) Again the bold bit above seems more than relevant. Let me take another whack and see what you think.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is better, but it is still a fact about Perkins, and without a reliable source connecting this fact to Gomez, has nothing to do with him. Suggesting it does is WP:OR. see "if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject" etc. The bold bit as applied to this article is a very, very weak and novel argument. Independence as used here is relevant only to notability and deletion, not reliability. The idea that if source A has the same publisher as source B, written by an article subject X, then A is in any way unacceptable for X is amazing. A published autobiography falls into this category, A=B even, but is accepted by policy as a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. The reliability is granted by the publisher, which has not had any serious arguments made against it. The very strangeness of the argument makes the OR and apparent impugnment of Perkins as a source relatively innocuous, and I won't change it for now. Regards,John Z (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your concern here. Why does the bare mention that "Perkins, who shares his publisher, interviewed him in one of her books" trouble you (i linked to Amherst website to show that it was the publisher)? Ms. Perkins wrote a book published by Amherst in which she interviews Mr. Gomez, whose works are also published by Amherst. There are citations, of the same quality, for the facts of who their shared publisher is. That's all that's in there now. And I'm happy with that bit as it is. I really can't bend on this brief mention of a fact, particularly given the fact that we still can't find a single independent or otherwise reliable source (i quoted the relevant WP:BIO bit upthread) for this article. I'll make you this deal, though: We remove the Amherst mention (on what i believe is a misunderstanding of WP:OR, but whatever) and in exchange also firmly enforce WP:RS. I note WP:RS says this: "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so." This policy rightly disqualifies Garage Glamour and Gomez' website. There are other sections that would disqualify Lexapro, as he has a business relationship with him, as a source of reliable, independent information for him beyond the fact that he's a "Lexapro pro photographer."

I'm making a huge compromise on both policy and reason by not stripping this down to the barest of three line stubs as it is. If reliable, secondary, and independent sources emerge, my opinion would change. I've looked very hard. Where are they?

  • John Z, First, thanks for your support in helping with this article. To answer a few questions on the talk page, please see this link, [2] Of note, the "Robinson, Carol (March 31, 2006). "Hometown folks fret over Attalla teen’s centerfold", The Birmingham News, pp. 1. Retrieved on 15 December 2008." is the article that quotes Playboy Playmate Holley Dorrough in stating Rolando Gomez discovered her as a playmate. "Jaime, Kristian (January 13, 2008). "Going digital with Rolando Gomez". La Prensa 20 (25): 8B. Retrieved on 15 December 2008." is an article on Gomez's career and accomplishments as a photographer. On Lexar Elite Photographers, Lexar chooses each year 30 photographers that they feel deserve that honor. This is a "non-compensated" honor, there is no requirement for the photographer to promote their products or company. The link to D-Pixx, it was not a cover photo only, it was a 9-page article on Gomez's photography and success plus a 4-page (13-pages total), separate article on his workshops in the Virgin Islands. Again, no compensation or promotion required. The "Rangefinder" (Sept. 06') was a cover story, not just a cover shot. The photo was not shot for Rangefinder, it was used by them to illustrate their featured photographer of the month (Gomez) plus the topic, "Mysteries of Lighting Revealed." The links to Photo District News (PDN) were press releases on his 7-city, 3-country tour in Europe completed in Sept. 2007, off their website. PDN is the "Wall Street Journal" of photography each month. The article "War Stories" [3] published in Studio Photography was written by the magazine editor at the time, Alice Miller [4], currently the vice president and board member of the International Photographic Council. On Gomez's selection as one of the "Top Five" military photographers world-wide from the Dept. of Defense (DOD), it was for the 55th Signal, Combat Camera annual workshop where the top 25 photographers, from all branches are chosen first, then sent there where they spend a week with noted civilian photographers which that year included James Nachtwey, Mary Lou Foy, Bernie Boston, Magnum Photographer Eli Reed and others. At the end of the week those noted civilian photographers choose the "Top Five." This is not to be confused with the "Military Photographer of the Year" (Bali ultimate cites in the talk page) competition were portfolios are submitted, via mail and judged (only), a total separate program. In fact, one of the photographers that worked for Gomez at the Air Force News Agency (AFNEWS), Gary Coppage, won that accolade during Gomez's tenure at AFNEWS. Several articles site Gomez's DOD Top Five accomplishment and are sourced including the one written by Miller. Finally, this press release, PhotoImaging & Design Expo 2005 Brings in the Top Guns "[5] lists Gomez in the 3rd paragraph with other Wiki notable photographers. Just FYI, thanks for your fairness. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI Policy

I urge anyone editing this article to read WP:COI. From the begining of this article: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.

"There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars." Bali ultimate (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We might also want to reflect on civility and being nice to newbies. COI editors are actually welcome to edit but if they succumb to ownership issues or otherwise are disruptive they may be blocked. Given the rather dismal way the anons have been treated I think furthering the perception that they are only here to print falsehoods is unhelpful. Before the article was targeted, gutted, de-feathered, stubbified and pillaried it needed help but was certainly better than the present version. There were a few editors willing to work on this article but let's be generous with good faith and let's avoid any edit warring, it doesn't do this article or Wikipedia any good. -- Banjeboi 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GarageGlamour.com

That site is a self-published source, and not notable. I have removed it. If there are secondary sources that refer to it, please provide sources.

Please stop

Jossi, this page was restored after DRV. Instead of deleting content to eliminate source without debate, please concentrate on making it better. I have reverted your edits, and are in the process of sourcing a better version. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVR, or not, there is no reason not to delete the fluff and provide sources, which is what I am doing. Work with me, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will work with you, but you removed sources without explanation. You are behaving erratically and seem to need to cool down. I know, I have been there. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not removed any sources. The glamour website is not a source for that statement,; Gomez website is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

If this person is notable, there should be third-party sources that describe him and his work. Without such sources, I am afraid it will go back to another round at AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Some here:

  • Hutton, Jim (April 29, 1995). "Vietnam Then and Now". San Antonio Express-News. pp. 1B. Retrieved 15 December 2008.
  • Robinson, Carol (March 31, 2006). "Hometown folks fret over Attalla teen's centerfold". The Birmingham News. Vol. 119. p. 1. Retrieved 15 December 2008. Then, at a Miami shoot, a photographer asked her if she'd be interested in testing for Playboy. She ignored his e-mails, but a month later, she went to a modeling workshop in Georgia and met photographer Rolando Gomez. He showed her work he'd done for Playboy, and asked her if she was interested. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • Jaime, Kristian (January 13, 2008). "Going digital with Rolando Gomez". La Prensa. 20 (25): 8B. Retrieved 15 December 2008.
  • Perkins, Michelle. Professional Portrait Posing: Techniques and Images from Master Photographers. Amherst Media, 2007. ISBN 1584282118. Page 51

Military overview

Much of Gomez's bio concerns military service, below is an overview from his bio. As sourcing (and edit warring) allow it should be added in.


I'm also posting this here so the milhist project knows why they are added as a project on this bio. -- Banjeboi 11:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to outside source on Rolando Gomez and AFNEWS, [6] It's the eight article down titled, "United States Air Force reaches online audience with recruiting campaign." FYI. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rolando_Gomez&oldid=258768472"