Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez (3rd nomination)

• Note: This AFD was relisted by effectively re-opening the 2nd AFD which has been transcluded on this page. This 3rd AFD contains all text from the relisting 3 months after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez (2nd nomination) was closed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• The closing of this AFD was overturned at DRV. The new closing decision is No consensus (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin note: This was originally closed as Delete by User:Neil, but was relisted after this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of reliable sources iaw WP:N. It had no sources when written two years ago. It still has no sources. If it were a new article then a pause to allow sources to be found and added would be appropriate but after two years??! So delete now; then if an editor (preferably not the subject) wants to re-create a good article idc, then all well and good. Springnuts (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Funny, "...but after two years" was the same argument of defense on why it was being considered for a "2nd" AfD and now you're using that as a defense after deletion review on why it should not even be looked at again? How ironic this is, or should I say "egg" on Wikipedia's face for even being looked at for a second AfD when it passed the first one, over two years ago. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note before 'voting':' It is more than usually useful to look at old versions of this article, since much of the discussion revolves around what is and what isn't a proper source - and many claimed sources have been removed. Springnuts (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You're correct, many claimed "sources" have been removed, but what you failed to say many of these credible sources were removed during the 2nd AfD and thus erroneously influenced a few people to vote for delete as they didn't even have half the facts straight. If the sources had been left to stand, it would have been overwhelmingly a "keep."--74.223.216.130 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this unsourced vanity piece about an apparently non-notable person (2 years no notability established by other users; i certainly couldn't find any via google).Bali ultimate (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment First, you don't even sign your statement properly, even as an "anon." Second, you obviously don't know the correct link to Google, and Google is not considered the "sole" reason to keep an article on Wikipedia for notability, but if you feel so, here's the Google link [1] for plenty of search results and if that doesn't help you, try this link, [2] Gomez is substantiated plenty of times by three other books, his three books on top of those for a total of six books, a cover story and feature article about him on the Sept. 06' Rangefinder magazine article, [3] and [4] and he's even listed here [5] as a "notable" speaker with several photographers listed as notable here on Wikipedia. Several Lexar Media Elite photographers like Gomez. If you want more credibility then remember he's the cover story for European photo magazine D-Pixx, [6] and there's more if you just take the time to click the links. Hopefully you'll be considered "weak" as those in the second AfD who posted as anons. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Deletion is getting ridiculously out of hand. Why are articles on people getting deleted? This is obviously something someone out there will be interested in. If you don't like it, don't read it.Likebox (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Noticeable: From Zoom In website, "This week's guest is Rolando Gomez, a photojournalist who made the switch to glamour photography a few years back. The author of Garage Glamour, he's the expert on beauty, and shares his insights on getting the most out of a shoot." Podcast interview of Gomez--Jmundo (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep issues raise are editing issues, notability was established on first nomination for deletion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A clear keep, perhaps obscured by tangential arguments here and confusion on the page. There are quite enough independent, substantial, third party, reliable sources on Rolando Gomez. For example, a 10-page chapter in this book is on him. There are magazine articles like [7] in the references/EL section in/out of the article, (see talk page), on him which also prove his notability. There's plenty of room for expansion based on reliable and other usable sources.John Z (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - A ten page chapter about him in an authoritative book about photographers would certainly be one reliable secondary source - a short chapter written by him in what looks like a non-notable book is not! Springnuts (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the author of the book does not appear to be the subject in question, and since it seems to be written in third person, could you tell me why you feel it was written by him? "Michelle Perkins" appears to have published many books - do you not feel it is a reliable source? Kuru ^talk 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - You are sort of right - and I was wrong in that I mistook the chapter heading for a chapter author. But - the chapter is written in the form of an interview, so the content (about three pages of text - the rest is photos) is very largely his own words. There are about ten lines about him on the first page. So it is a source, but not a hugely impressive one. Falls way way short of WP:CREATIVE. Springnuts (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment And the biography in the same source you are discussing is not written as an "interview" but in Michelle Perkins words. The bio alone is priceless as a credible source. On another note, I like your user page, it's got great resources for deletions. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - An article appearing like a self-aggrandizing autobiography is a reason for re-writing, not deletion. The sources found by JohnZ clearly show this person passes WP:N and WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The book chapter alone is substantial enough to provide notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Funny, I see people arguing to delete because of "two years ago" but we should look at the present, not the past. An article sourced properly two years ago, passed an initial Afd, then two years later a 2nd AfD claimed it's fate for political reasons, then when it's back, the past is being judged, doesn't make sense. This is a photographer with three books, over five national speaking appearances, listed here on the University of Texas Wikipedia entry as notable, and we're still arguing about notability after being re-listed during a deletion review. There is no question this person is notable, especially after you see links to other photographers listed on Wikipedia as notable with less sources and all are Lexar Elite selected photographers. Let's cut the deletionsist crap and move forward and do some justice and make this article what it should be, notable. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)74.223.216.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment As this has been relisted, I've read through the comments and looked at the sources, and my original "delete" still stands: I don't see this passing WP:CREATIVE as Gomez isn't a particularly notable photographer any more than many others out there. WP:N needs to be applied with vigour. This is a self-promotional article (see my comment above about Gomez's use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool), nothing more, and the sources provided are not convincing in establishing notability, other than showing a working photographer. freshacconci talktalk 04:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment So it's against the law to list on your website that you're listed in Wikipedia? Don't get it, promoting Wikipedia is wrong? Gomez, at least on what I can tell, lists Wikipedia in his three books to photographers, as a great resource. I think someone with such a huge following of fans is positive and proactive toward Wikipedia in providing marketing "FOR" WIkipedia more than himself. As far as your definition for "working photographer," which perhaps you should consider starting a page for here on Wikipedia so we can have a clear definition, perhaps we should ask ourselves how many "working photographers" exist in this world, then trim the list on how many have written three books or more, how many are featured as cover stories on magazines in the U.S. and Europe, how many are Lexar Elite Photographers, how many are Speakers at Photo Plus Expo, how many are speakers at Photo Imaging Design Expo, how many are speakers at FotoFusion, how many are teachers at Julia Dean, how many are teachers at Samy's Camera Digital Photography Institute, how many are speakers at the Palm Beach Photographic Center, how many are featured in other books in chapter length, how many have co-illustrated stories with Pultizer prize winning photographers like Eddie Adams, how many have a distinguished military career, how many documented the drug-war in Central and South America, how many have taught over 300 workshops in the past eight years, how many have gone on 3-country, 7-city European tours for Calument Photographic, how many were featured in Leica World News, how many were featured in Studio Photography magazine, how many are NBA credentialed, etc., etc., and you might find a total of "one." Yep, that' your ordinary working photographer. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but maintain our standards about promotional articles and remove puffery. the photographer is sufficiently notable, though it would really help to have some reviews of the books in 3rd party publications. Some of the references in earlier versions were reasonable links, and should be readded. But the argument above in favor of it is an apt illustration of exactly what we do not want in our articles. It is reasonable for an artist to what to promote his work, and there are suitable places for it, but one reason why people use and perhaps trust Wikipedia is because it is not a medium for advertising. if we're not an encyclopedia, why bother--if one wants to see advertising and promotion, Google has us beat. DGG (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is a more current version of this article's entry here: User:Miranda/Gomez, [8] that Kuru placed for Miranda to work on, than the current one displayed now. Please keep that in mind as it's more current with more current sources. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The article is written as a promotional piece and contains no reliable sources that verify notability. The one source given is a podcast and one of the two further reading links says nothing about him. If the gentleman is indeed notable, and reliable sources verifying notability are added to the article (I couldn't find any), I will be happy to reconsider my delete (my personal notability bar is quite low so even one independent source would suffice!). (I also disagree with the reasoning that the article should be kept for the purpose of 'marketing' wikipedia.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment You obviously missed the master list of links for notability on this person, there is more than one outside link on notability listed on this master page of links, [9] that can truly help this article. I would also recommend reviewing this discussion for more references: [10] and hit the "show" button on the right to see the full discussion. You might also want to see this link, [11] as it's an older version but has great links --72.191.15.133 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that I don't see a personal website as a credible source (I have one of my own and don't consider myself notable!). What would do it for me is one reliable independent source that says that Mr. Gomez is a notable photographer. AFAIK, every reasonably proficient photographer would have photos published in various magazines, but that does not, by itself, make them notable. I went through User:Bali ultimate's research and, though I wouldn't quite put it the way he/she has, I think the research is right. In the final analysis, I'm willing to be convinced that the gentleman is notable, so a good source would be great. Other than that, I'm waiting for User:Miranda to weigh in on this. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some outside links, Photo District News, considered the "Wall Street Journal" of photography, [12] and [13], Lexar website for their Elite Photographers including Gomez and Jerry Avenaim, Greg Gorman, John Isaac, James B. Dickman, Vincent Laforet, Joe McNally to name a few [14] and [15]. New York Times best-selling author Lisa Kleypas on Gomez, [16] Other links, Zoom-in, [17], PRWeb release, [18], article by Gary Bernstein [19], Danella Lucioni credits Gomez, Podcast [20] by University of Virgin Islands professor Alex Randall [21] and previous podcast [22] hopefully that helps. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• cmt 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 ([[23]], 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)

• Comment First, let's take your points one by one. 1. The Rangefinder photo was taking during an instructional workshop in the Virgin Islands. Rangefinder chose that image for their cover, it was not originally taken for them specifically and they ran that image to compliment their "feature cover story"--Rolando Gomez, Mysteries of Lighting. The link to the story is provided on their website. 2. The image for D-Pixx cover was shot years before the article ran and was not shot for that or any other magazine specifically. D-Pixx ran that image on the cover to support it's cover-feature story on the photography of Rolando Gomez, it was a 9-page spread with a double truck image. They also ran another story in the magazine, 4-pages long, about Rolando Gomez workshops, not one of the stories were written by Rolando Gomez, though he was interviewed for supporting quotes in the story. 3. The University of Texas, San Antonio Wikipedia notable link on Rolando Gomez originally pointed to his Wikpeida page here, but was changed only after the article was deleted here on Wikipedia so it would not resolve to a Wikipedia link that no longer appeared to support the link. Once the article is listed here again, it should be updated. Gomez graduated summa cum laude with a GPA of 4.0 out of 4. 4. The military career article was written by the editor of Studio Photography monthly magazine, in fact it was a 14-page feature piece that listed many notable military photographers including Pulitzer Prize winner Eddie Adams. The story uses supporting quotes from Rolando like any magazine uses supporting quotes to establish credibility, that is journalism 101. There were no advertisements in this feature piece that won journalism awards. 5. The Leica World magazine is published by Leica Camera world-wide. They invented 35mm and the article was written by Jason Schneider. While Leica does sponsor Rolando Gomez as photographer, they only sponsor a few photographers world wide because of their ability and who they are in the photography fields and they must be notable in their fields. Leica doesn't sponsor ordinary photographers. The magazine features photographers, both sponsored and not sponsored on a quarterly basis. 6. Three pictures in Parade magazine was for a commissioned photo feature on U.S. soldiers guarding the Holy Land during Christmas that involved the photography of Rolando Gomez and Eddie Adams. It was an assignment like any other photographers assignments that appear in a periodical. This was not a sponsorship endorsement. Gomez traveled to the Sinai Desert for two weeks to get these photos with a journalist. Circulation was 32 million printed copies in 400 major U.S. newspaper markets--it was a cover story. A full-page ad in Parade costs $300K. This was not an advertisement, it ran cover plus two-pages and featured 2 images of Adams, 3 of Gomez's. 7. Amherst Media is not a vanity press and many of their authors are listed here as notable photographers. Rolando's first book made the Amazon.com top 1,000 sellers list out of over seven million books and has 50 book reviews and still sells well. Amherst Media books are found in every Borders, Books A Million, Barnes and Nobels and more brick and mortar books stores world-wide on the shelf, unlike vanity books. 8-10. The photography conventions Gomez speaks at, Photo Imaging Design Expo, Photo Plus Expo, FotoFusion, etc., are the same conventions listed for notable photographers on Wikipedia Jerry Avenaim and Greg Gorman, all three photographers are Lexar Elite Photographers, Lexar is listed here on Wikipedia, and Gomez and Avenaim have even spoken together as Aveniam discusses in this original 2nd AfD. These are annual conventions and PPE alone is the number one convention at the Jacob Javit's Convention Center in Manhattan that attracts 24,000 photographers and hundreds of vendor booths each Fall. There is no greater Expo for photographers in the United States or Europe in attendance. 11. There was no book signing tour, while Gomez often takes books to sell at his appearances, attendees often bring their books for signatures as he's well-known. The tour was an American in Europe lecturing on glamour photography and lighting and was paid for and advertised by Calumet Photographic, one of the largest camera store chains world-wide--hence why the press release ran in the top photography magazine Photo District News and in nine top European magazines in two-page spreads. 12. He was an NBA full-credential (not a day-pass) photographer for four years covering the San Antonio Spurs, including covering the first three rounds of the NBA Playoffs last year. NBA credentials are not handed out to anyone, they must be applied for. Not to mention he was a 1996 Olympic Game Committee credentialed photographer too and the 1999 Pan American Olympic Games. Your final statement demonstrates your prejudice toward Gomez's photography and hence why your statements are tainted toward deletionist bias.[Special:Contributions/72.191.15.133|72.191.15.133]] (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolando - Who cares about the nature of your assignements for speciality photo mags, parade, et al? I believe you took the shots (it's not hard to believe after looking at them.). But all that does is verify you're an at least occasionally-working pro photographer. An honorable profession. Good on ya. But using this to establish notability would be akin to Jim the Carpenter submitting pictures of cabinets he made as evidence for his notability and the non-deletion of a vanity/advertising piece about him. James Nachtwey, David LaChapelle, Robert Maplethorpe, guys that win awards like World Press Photo are all notable. You, not so much (have you even read the standards for notability?).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment First, Parade, listed here in Wikipedia, [24]) is, and I quote Wiki, "PARADE is a national Sunday newspaper magazine, distributed in more than 400 newspapers in the United States. It was founded in 1941 and is owned by Advance Publications. The most widely read magazine in America, Parade has a circulation of 32 million and a readership of 71 million." This was a cover-story assignment co-illustrated with Pulitzer Prize photographer Eddie Adams, also here on Wikipedia. Gomez is a full-time working professional photographer. In 1994, during the Combat Camera workshop in Ft. Meade, where to be accepted you had to be one of the top 25 photographers in U.S. Military just to attend, several notable photographers, including James Nachtwey, Bernie Boston, Eli Reed [25], Mary Lou Foy, and others selected Gomez as one of the top-five military photographers in the world that year. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I won't comment on Mr. Gomez's style or abilities as a photographer, but I do thank Bali ultimate for the legwork in looking through these sources. As such, I'm now more convinced than ever that this article fails WP:CREATIVE. freshacconci talktalk 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. But I would note that Bali Ultimate didn't address the 10 page book chapter about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment True, but looking at the link provided, that source seems tenious at best. It's a how-to book and I would argue that it doesn't fulfill the requirement as a third-party source. It establishes Mr. Gomez as a professional photographer, but not as a notable one. The book is published by Amherst Media, which publishes photography how-to books. There's a grey area here, and I'm not really convinced that a chapter on Mr. Gomez is a reliable third-party source rather than an advertisement for Amherst Media. Googling the author, Michelle Perkins, it seems she only publishes with Amherst. Seems all too cozy for me. I'd be more comfortable if there were some source that doesn't lead back to Gomez. freshacconci talktalk 20:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment User Bali Ultimate obviously has a biased perception, please look at the rebuttal to his 1-12 links expose and you'll see he was totally wrong in his "assumptions" about the links and did not properly state the facts. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are three how-to books authored by Gomez, all top-sellers on Amazon.com and the first had 50 reviews. These are not chapters, but 25,000 words in each book. Not vanity press either. And since you're from Toronto, Gomez has taught four seminars/workshops in Toronto in the past, all sold-out appearances. Lexar, listed here on Wikipedia, selected 30 photographers around the world to represent them six years ago and updates that list annually, Gomez, Gorman and Avenaim, the latter two listed here on Wikipedia with that as one of the source links, were all and still are from the group of the original 30 selected world-wide. We cannot use one link to others here on Wikipedia and then state it's not credible for another. If it is a credible link for Gorman and Avenaim the same should be for Gomez. The appearance I see here, is the genre of photography is being judged. If a notable photographer shoots glamour, it's a negative, if the same photographer shoots celebrities, it's a positive. I think this link, [26] shows more than what a typical photographer accomplishes. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• cmt Rolando: You're the liar, not I. I clicked the links and have described what i saw accurately. I invite anyone uncertain on who to believe to investigate for themselves. And of COURSE i'm biased against your photography; i've looked at it.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I lied. Rolando, I missed this bit: "There are three how-to books authored by Gomez, all top-sellers on Amazon.com." Authors of 3 best selling books are by definition notable. Just give us the links proving best selling authorship, and i'll happily change my vote (I still think your pictures are lousy, but as i said, not relevant to the matter at hand).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment First, calling someone a liar is not only libelous but not needed in these types of discussion. I cannot post the Amazon.com link for his latest book as we don't want the appearance of spamming, but it's about 5-weeks old and if you type "Rolando Gomez" in the search box under books you'll get his three books listed, then click the link on the latest book on "posing" and you'll see under "product details" the current hourly ranking in sales. Just so you understand, it changes hourly, currently it's at 12,693 and #2 in Nudes, #7 in Fashion Photography and #26 in Portraits, but it may go up or down and Amazon.com has millions of books in inventory and this number reflects sales in the previous hour. Here is a link to his first book, almost three years old [27] with a ranking at 39,423 and #12 in nudes and #80 in Portraits at this hour with 50 reviews. Most books on Amazon.com don't average more than five reviews at most. His second book for some odd reason is listed under the "Erotica" category instead of glamour and Amazon.com doesn't rank those, it has 16 reviews. The first book in the first year made Amazon.com's top 1,000 listing, however I'm not sure since this is updated hourly how that can be proved. One last note, if you type in "glamour photography" on Amazon.com under "search books," you'll find [28] his three books hold spots at this hour #3, #4, and #5 out of 766 results, again, this updates hourly. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

*to clarify. The author has not written a single verifiable best seller, let alone three. Pity. Would have changed my position. (though i love the "hourly" bit).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Bestsellers in photography are not rated like a mainstream non-fiction book, they are genre specific and therefore rated by their specific category. If you use the above referenced Amazon.com link, [29] and select "Best Selling" you'll notice in the categories nude photography, glamour photography and portrait photography Gomez books (more than one) are in the top 40 out of hundreds and over 1,700 in the case of portrait photography. Specifically at the Amazon.com best seller list here (links are left in URL form, notice Amazon.com uses "/bestseller/" in the directory URL, http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/271620011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_5_last he holds spots #3 & #6 at this hour and here, http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/2030/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_2_4_last spot number seven in fashion photography. I guess, like Wikipedia, everyone has their interpretation of things, Amazon.com being the biggest on-line "book" retailer must know why they name their directory "bestseller," guess they know what they are doing. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a very disappointing debate. I'm afraid that the world of photography is not my fotre, so forgive me if there's some sort of secret set of criteria for notability here, but a lenghty study of articles in the American Photographers category reveals no hint of a low bar for inclusion. Hell, Gomez is in the top quartile of what I saw there. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in this case the notability guidelines that seem to be implied by WP:CREATIVE are clearly not in use. The criteria for the underlying WP:BIO is easily met. He is the subject of third party, published material. His books seem to be well positioned on Amazon and appear to be legitimate works; if Amherst Media is a "vanity press" I would like to see the support for the assertion. "They only publish photography books" is odd; is Edward Elgar Publishing non-reliable because they only publish economics material? I do agree with DGG that the article should be reduced to material that can be directly sourced, something I'd be delighted to do at the end of this AFD. Kuru ^talk 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the debate is disappointing. The nature of things in wikipedia is such that, when reliable secondary sources are missing, it becomes a challenge to determine notability and I see various editors here trying to do a good job in figuring out whether this person is notable or not. Where you see a disappointing debate I find a community that seems to be functioning the way it is supposed to function! To your point about WP:BIO, or in particular WP:CREATIVE being easily met, my conclusion is a little different. Let's see, the criteria for WP:CREATIVE are: (1)The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. This is fairly obviously not the case because the person is barely, if at all, cited. (2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. This is not the case. (3) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He may marginally satisfy this requirement with the 'how-to' books but no independent periodical articles or reviews on these books have been provided. (4) The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. No to (a), (b) or (d) and evidence for (c) is not available. While I am open to keeping the article if even one reliable independent source is provided, or if the consensus is that a published book or two is enough for notability whatever the status of secondary sources about the book, I'm afraid I don't really see how the criteria in WP:BIO are 'easily met'. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  • You seem to be confused by my prose; I've made no such claim that he meets WP:CREATIVE. I would ask that you read my analysis again. Kuru ^talk 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    You're right. I did misunderstand your post. Apologies. I do think, however, that the debate here is far from disappointing. Notability is the crux of what goes into wikipedia, sourcing is an important (if not the main) way of determining notability, and the debate is centered around these two things. This is, IMO, an example of wikipedia working well. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 13:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

On another matter, may i ask the IP why he continues to edit referring to "Gomez" as if he is not, in fact, Gomez himself? I note this edit of his [[30]] states that he is gomez. I guess one is allowed to write, and advocate for, articles about oneself, but it seems at the very least a little misleading.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't pretend that's not bugging the hell out of me. :) Kuru ^talk 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This IP is used by more than one computer. A known fact, many "creatives" use "co-ops" for many things. My apologies for the confusion. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolando: Are you telling us that the IP that vociferously canvasses for the obscure non-notable Rolando Gomez and feeds a bunch of hooey about the "subjectivity" of best seller lists, mischaracterizes sources, and is trying to use walls of text to confuse an afd debate, and which recently self-identified on Kuru's talk page as Rolando Gomez, is not in fact Rolando Gomez? Either way, the conflict of interest, your relentless canvassing, etc... is pathetic. As to best seller lists and what otherwise makes a book notable; there is no subjectivity. There are clear guidelines for book notability[[31]]. Your books, Rolando (aka ip 72.191.xxx) are VERIFIABLY non-notable as per wikipedia standards. Not even close.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bali, you obviously "have it out for Gomez," and no one ever said the books were being tested for "notability." In fact 95-percent of all photography books over the past 25 years would not meet Wikipedia "notability" standards. You mentioned they were not bestsellers, the only issue discussed was where they best-selling or not? That point has been proven, at least two are verifiable as best-selling photography books. You love to veer off into many tangents. You are living proof, with all your comments and posts on this subject as the type of Wikipedian who loves editwaring. Obviously you're not an admin and will never be one with that type of attitude. You should try filling out your user page so we can see what you really are besides an anti-Gomez stalker. You obviously have a vendetta and proof is in your statements here and your own questionable deletionist comments list history. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolando - none of your books are best sellers. Your latest book was ranked when i looked 16,000 at Amazon. According to this [32] that means you were selling at that moment in time at a rate of 12 copies a week.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• comment Rolando/AKA IP As i was researching your illustrious career on your web site, even as you were calling me a "stalker" "edit warrior" etc... I was reading in your bio that you are "a State of Texas Certified Mediator in Conflict Resolution." Clearly not a very skilled one, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Chill, both of you please. Bali ultimate, wether or not the anons are/ or are related to Gomez we need to be welcoming and no one is falling for voluminous assertions instead of actual reliable sources. To the anon(s), if your interest is improving the article you can post reliable sources to the talkpage of the article. At this point all else is just white noise that will be disregarded and repeatedly posting will generally hurt this process and possibly get you banned. -- Banjeboi 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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.