Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Michael 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 was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James Michael Gomez[edit]
- James Michael Gomez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The subject of this article is non-notable and I have been unable to find any verifiable sources to support it. Remarkably, the article includes this passage, under the overblown heading, Controversy: His rather outspoken, sometimes unfounded comments on other photographers, directors, and artists, as well as his public airing of his private life could be considered career-breaking, or at least a hindrance this early on in his career [my emphasis]. Even more remarkably, in the sentence that follows its author resorts to the absence of material as evidence of notability: some websites, including buzznet.com were edited to completely remove his concluding interview in its entirety. The "external link" provided is a personal blog, and of the four "references" provided, three do not mention his name and the other one is (again) buzznet, hardly meritorious. Let's drop this absurdity. Pinkville (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- This guy is really, really unnotable, the article is self promotion so blatant it borders on being a prod. Reyk YO! 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a stub still, its not finished. You don't even know who he is, search ace michaels. same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.99.16 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- watch the damn video on James St. James daily freak show see why he was cut out and see who he is. he comes in at around 6 mins, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.99.16 (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I quote from the page that I think is meant: The Daily Freak Show is a new daily show featuring James St James and certain friends set loose on the town! covering a variety of stuff. Check it out now and tune in to the WOW Report every day to see a fresh installment. So fresh, in fact, you'll want to slap its face. This sounds profoundly unnnotable to me. Should I really go to trouble of downloading and installing some plug-in just to see this? Hm, I am interested in photography, and I could be persuaded to do all this for insights into another Cartier-Bresson or another Nachtwey. Let's see what photographic wonders are in store. The work stars various people I've never heard of, sixth or seventh among whom is masochist porn actor James Michael Gomez. "Masochist porn actor"? What happened to the photography? But I might still manage to work up some infinitesimal interest, possibly. Let's see, how long was this? -- Running Time: 06:46. So in the last 46 seconds or so of this very obscure video, a masochist porn actor appears to tell the world who he is and why he'll later be cut out. Uh, no, can't be bothered. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Please delete this unsubstantiatable, non-notable mess. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of course - completely non-notable subject making a self-advertising article.Yobmod (talk) 12:17, 22 July 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.