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 notability and verifiability. Neıl ☄ 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Gomez[edit]

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) — 72.191.15.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]
  • — 74.38.112.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (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]
• 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]
• Delete There are no verifiable third-party references to establish notability.freshacconci talktalk 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per AFD, if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. This does seem to be an accomplished, award-wining photographer who has authored several books on the subject and speaks and advises on the subject. Clean-up, add sourcing and spell out notability upfront and clearly per WP:Lede. ::Banjeboi 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree, per AFD, if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. I'm very aware of this photographer, I've seen him speak at national conventions and I have spoken along side him. These events have included Photo Plus Expo in New York and Photo Imaging and Design in San Diego, and I can attest to his notable credibility. He has authored several books on the subject and speaks and advises on the subject in many venues. I might add, from my 20 plus years of professional experience in celebrity and advertising photography, you cannot "just speak or lecture" at these notable venues unless you have some serious credentials. To sum it up, clean it up, add sourcing as recommended. Jerry Avenaim (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "Keep per AFD" mean? I'm suggesting that this article should be deleted because there are no non-biased third party sources that support that this man is notable. All that was there was a list of external links to his works, references in another sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were plenty of links, which you deleted, off the original article-that were from third-parties, but somehow you label them as biased? On what grounds? When Lexar selects and Elite Photographer, does that make that photographer's biography on their web site biased and inaccurate? When Photo District News (PDN) posts a news release, in PDF format, does that make PDN biased--when in fact PDN is a monthly news magazine on photography. When an author of another book dedicates an entire chapter on Gomez, does that make that editor biased and does that mean their comments in their own book are inaccurate? You are splitting hairs here and accusing others that have selected Gomez to speak or feature him at their venues as biased? Doesn't make sense. I think there needs to be a serious review of what makes an link biased or not and you also appear very biased at deleting, instead of being proactive and helping, because you were the original admin that deleted this article and now your own pride is involved--that is a perception that is apparent simply by looking at the logs of this debate and the article where you keep deleting links and moving discussions over to other pages--I can assure you this comment will be moved by you unfairly as you've done others, but yet your comment for Mr. Avenaim, will stay. Now where is the bias? 74.38.112.174 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please remember to assume good faith when commenting here. There is nothing wrong with this deletion nomination. No one has a right to be in Wikipedia. If the subject is notable and there are verifiable third-party sources, then the article will most likely be kept. However, per Wikipedia guidelines, the subject does not appear to pass notability standards per WP:CREATIVE and appropriate sources have not been brought forward yet. freshacconci talktalk 03:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If any of those wishing to help save the article would like I've listed the links on the articles talkpage. What's most helpful is published articles about Rolando Gomez and referencing awards, him speaking, his work and books reviews. I'm not in the mood at the moment but I'll look to rewriting this as there does seem to be able evidence backing what the article states. More sources are better, in general so feel free to list them here or there and I'll follow the links to what's usable. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete.. Or at least a stubbification. Not sure that the notability hits the bar required, but there's too much unencyclopedic stuff in there anyway. SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 9 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]

• Keep. Why is this even a discussion? The article has already passed one AFD. Additional citations could and probably should be added. But that does not mean that the current version should be deleted. Where is the legitimacy of even considering this for deletion? There are no false claims, no apparent error of fact. Within the world of photography, Rolando Gomez is notable. That is a fact, not an opinion. I'm not suggesting that this is a personal attack on Mr. Gomez, but I certainly do not see a legitimate argument here. --Agletp (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — Agletp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Yes, additional citations should be added, but they haven't. That Mr. Gomez is a "notable photographer", at this moment, is merely an opinion, not a "fact". There are no verifiable third-party references. The legitimacy for considering this for deletion is found here: WP:CREATIVE. This is the process that Wikipedia has established. Any editor can bring an article to AfD and a discussion then takes place. Just because you feel there should be an article does not mean that an AfD discussion is not warranted. Present a compelling argument as to why this article should be kept. Attacking other editors' opinions or the validity of the AfD process is not useful. freshacconci talktalk 11:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is now obvious that there is some outside group canvassing to get this article saved. Two IPs and now an account with no edits other than the one above have commented here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the above post, please do not try to make any "obvious" statements about me. You know nothing about me. I am a long-time user of Wikipedia, and I was looking for one of the references that USED to be listed on the article in question. When I saw that it was up for deletion, I created a user id and posted my opinion that it should be kept because there is no compelling reason not to. I am not part of any group. I have found this article useful in the past, and I do not see any validity in the arguments to delete it. That's it. Any further assumptions based on my postings undermine any credibility that may otherwise exist with your opinion.--Agletp (talk) 07:48, 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.