Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez


 * 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 of the nomination was keep - no votes for delete after a rewrite. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rolando Gomez
Vanity, not notable. RidG Talk/Contributions 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see links to other glamour photographers on Wikipedia, they too share the bios of the photographers, some of which are Rolando's friends today.

As a published author for the second largest photography book company, Amherst Media, and a writer for Cygnus Publication magazines including Studio Photography, PMA Daily, and others I disagree. Not to mention Rolando came on board in 1999 with what Google.com ranked as the top glamour photography site for many years, now Glamour1.com.

Gomez has 27 years of photography, worked with many glamour models and even discoverd the April 2006 Playboy Playmate Holley Dorrough. Gomez has taught over 85 "Glamour Photography" workshop from Canada to Mexico and as a photographer has worked in 39 countries. His recent glamour photography book has even made the Amazon.com list, not to mention his previous DVD on glamour photography was produced by the author of many glamour books, Gary Bernstein.

Gomez has spoken on glamour photography to record breaking crowds at Photo Plus Expo in NYC, the top photographer's annual show, Photo Imaging Design Expo in San Diego, Fotofusion in Del Ray Beach, Fl., and has taught glamour the Palm Beach Photographic Center and the Julia Dean Photo Schools in Los Angeles. For more information see his biography at www.rolandogomez.com

Not to mention, the recent issue of Leica World News magazine ran a three page article on Gomez and his glamour photography. Gomez is sponsored by Leica, the Rolls Royce of cameras, Olympus, Chimera, Hensel Lighting, Lexar and many other companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolandogomez (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. Gomez, I hope you realize that every one of your edits to Wikipedia is recorded under your logged-in name - that is, Rolando Gomez. The article you've created is on its face obviously about yourself, and that is the main problem here. Generally speaking, it is much better to wait until someone else writes about you, since that helps indicate that you are notable enough for inclusion. Please also consult WP:VANITY for further explanation. RidG Talk/Contributions 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral . Article needs major cleanup and verification of claims to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO.  Mr Gomez is _not_ helping his case by writing about himself in the third person, I might add. Tevildo 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why I listed vanity as the first and primary reason for the AfD. If and when Mr. Gomez can overcome the barrier posed by WP:VANITY, we can discuss notability. RidG Talk/Contributions 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.lexar.com/dp/pro_photo/rgomez.html http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/bio.jsp?id=30&pubId=3 http://www.zuga.net/articles/printer_190.shtml http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=3867 http://www.samys.com/articles/rolando_gomez/rolando_gomez.html http://www.sunbounce-usa.com/rolando_gomez.html http://www.imaginginfo.com/article/article.jsp?id=65&siteSection=36 http://www.workshop.org/pages/photography/pages/gomez_lighting_4_glamour_06.html http://www.amherstmedia.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AM&Product_Code=1820 Just to mention a few. What I don't understand, if you go to Wikipedia and search under "glamour photography" you find similar photographers, such as my friends David Mecey and Andy Chabot. David's Wiki page is similar to mine, my bio and creds.
 * Comment. Additionally, the "External links" section of Glamour photography may have to be updated to revert Mr. Gomez' revisions depending on the outcome of this AfD debate. RidG Talk/Contributions 00:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I'm still learning Wikipedia, I was sent here by Dr. Steve Hample who told me about this place. You can find more of my accomplishments on various websites including:

I'm more than happy to "clean up" or edit what you may need, but I have made significat contributions to glamour photography in the past ten years, enough to earn a spot in the masthead of Studio Photography and as a successful author for Amherst Media, a top photography book publisher in the United States. Not to mention my contributions in general as a photographer and photojournalist. I'd be happy to provide tearsheets.

Please advise. Respectfully, Rolando. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolandogomez (talk • contribs) 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC) ""Comment"" Thanks Tevildo--I'd be happy to send you a copy of my new book, email me an addy. As I mentioned before, I'm still learning this, and when I initially posted the article, I was still editing, I didn't expect an automatic review and for it to be sent to the deletion category.
 * Comment. The links quoted should be sufficient to establish notability.  I would recommend WP:STYLE and WP:CITE for official policy on the style of the article and the way to include the references in it.  Please also remember to sign your comments with four tildes, thus: ~ Tevildo 00:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, since I'm still learning this, have five kids and my own business to run/take care of, what is the next step? Is the article going to be deleted? How is it taken out? Etc. I might add, I saw in the WP link to "vanity" where "newbies" should not automatically be added to the deletion category immediately, they should be addressed first to give chances of correction before arbitrarily judged. Not trying to be mean here, as printed words are often harsher than spoke words, but please understand, I'm new to this and I can contribute as I learn more, in fact, as mentioned earlier, I was asked to come here by another person. Respectfully, Rolando Rolandogomez 01:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rolando - The purpose of the AfD is precisely to avoid "arbitrary judgment" - having this up allows you, me, and other users to have a discussion on the issues with the article, which makes it easier for administrators to arrive at a decision. Please consult WP:STYLE and WP:CITE (thank you, Tevildo) for appropriate citation of your sources that will confirm notability. If you still have any questions, please feel free to voice them here or leave me a message on my talk page. RidG Talk/Contributions 02:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I may have inadvertainly removed this from the AFD log file when I first saw this notice, this was not done on purpose. I was in the middle of editing this when I was hit with the ADF notice, being a "newbie" I was poking around trying to figure this system out. I'm still learning it, so please bear with me. Thanks to those that have messaged me to help me out. Respectfully, Rolando. Rolandogomez 02:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Lengthy discussion by User:Rolandogomez moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez Please read to give helpful comments there. ~ trialsanderrors 17:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity page -- MrDolomite 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does someone want to clean this up? If not, Delete see below and see if someone who's not the subject wants to create a new article. ~ trialsanderrors 06:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done some basic editing and cleanup of the page. Tevildo 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, do we know his pictures were featured in Playboy magazine? Seems to me the original version only claimed he took pictures for Playboy Enterprises (for "Special Editions", whatever that is. Girls of the SEC?) ~ trialsanderrors 15:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that - appropriate correction made. Tevildo 15:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Restricted Keep per Tevildo's cleanup work and an Amazon sales rank of 5748 in books. I'd still like to see more material on the subject rather than self-description. ~ trialsanderrors 15:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per myself and the above. :) Tevildo 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)



Greetings,

To help you in your decisions, I'll share a few observations. I have a long bystander interest in the development of computers, information systems / data bases and worldwide understanding and have met many of the pioneers of modern computers and the world wide web. Hence, I am a fan of Wikipedia. I also enjoy photography as a hobby and took a workshop class from Mr. Gomez. It is evidently that juxtaposition of interests and my comments which gave rise to the current discussion.

First I applaud (as I think would Mr. Gomez) the volunteer efforts of editors to include useful, and exclude non useful, entries. I rather admire this effort.

Relative to the case at hand:

Mr. Gomez did submit amateur model Holley Durrough to Playboy which led to her success in becoming a Playboy "centerfold" model (Miss April 2006). While I was at a workshop taught by Mr. Gomez I met Ms. Durrough. I found her to be an exceptionally photogenic model and a very candid, ambitious, and personable young lady. She (and other models) expressed confidence in, and loyalty to, Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gomez enjoys a very high level of respect from such models.

In the interests of disclosure, such confidence on the part of the models and the enthusiasm of Mr. Gomez led me to enter into a minor business relationship with Mr. Gomez. However, such minor relationship is insignificant relative to my posting.

I empathize with you in dealing with matters of taste, art, politics and personalities. Relevant to the definition of 'glamour photography' my take is that it need not be "erotic". I suggest "including erotic images and other images which are somehow focused on attractiveness in a way not usually found in day to day life". OK, call me verbose, but I think some enlargement would be good.

Good luck with your deliberations.

Steve H


 * 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.