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

Commentary and discussion from the main page

 * Here's one source, from the former editor of Studio Photography magazine, Alice Miller, a 14-page special piece on military photographers including Eddy Adams, Joe Rosenthal and of course the person in question, Rolando Gomez, I do believe this is a bonafide third-party resource, http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=1261&pageNum=3 scroll down to the portion on Gomez. 74.38.112.174 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * An email conversation with this man will not solve the problem here on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article does not have sufficient information that shows that the biography on him should be hosted on this website. That is what this AFD is discussing, regardless of the prior AFD results and discussion.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I think that the quoted (linked) third-party sources do meet the Wiki's definition of reliable sources, not to mention the Deputy of Public Affairs for Operations of the Air Force News Agency--yes, the words News Agency (run by the Dept. of Defense and Air Force) should scream credibility. I might add, Amherst Media meets Wikipedia's criteria for a publisher, third party, and on Amazon.com you can see author Michelle Perkins's book excerpt, http://books.google.com/books?id=_xnQC80K1PgC&pg=PA51&dq=%22Rolando+Gomez%22&ei=cd_DSODdCY32sgP2lanYDA&sig=ACfU3U3xXajqMaJkj8fRGvhcr7NwNIBVGQ#PPA51,M1 or just click on the "rescue" tab for Google book search.  Enough said....74.38.112.174 (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)