Rolando Gomez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) ( DRV1 | AfD2 | DRV2 | DRV3 | AfD3)

Weak majority was for keep. Deletionists failed to convince me (and possibly others) that the subject is non-notable. Decision to delete seems informed more by vanity issues (subject is meat/sock puppeteering etc) rather than actual sourcing of notability, which should be the sole criteria. There are subjects less notable in wikipedia that have survived AfD where the majority were for delete. I think result should have been no consensus and that at least the closing admin was mistaken in ignoring majority opinion without explanation. Cerejota ( talk) 06:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion relates to Rolando Gomez, photographer. [1]-- Suntag ☼ 17:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion: Have one deletion discussion, have six, but that doesn't change the fact that you're dealing with a biography of a living person that (a) does not contain sufficient assertions of notability; and (b) is all-in-all a garbage piece of writing that we should not include in our project. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If that is your opinion, then you should have expressed in the discussion. You didn't participate in the discussion, you closed it without any explanation and when there was no consensus either way. Now we know why, and this means you did a bad closing that should be overturned. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion - or does my nom count? The sources proving notability are all there, in plain sight. Content issues, such as bad writing, are better fixed by cleanup tagging, not AfD. Furthermore, this article was the subject of a previous AfD which established notability. I honestly see no reason why to delete, and in particular find that the discussion was no consensus, not delete. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, your nomination already implies that you want the deletion overturned. Stifle ( talk) 13:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Nothing seems wrong with the deletion decision. No reliable source. Likely a COI. And DRV nominations with the word "deletionist" in them don't inspire confidence that some procedural error will be uncovered with the close. Protonk ( talk) 08:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I used "deletionist" as short-hand for "those in favor of deletion", not to refer to the ideological position. I do apologize and realize it was not a good choice of words. That said, please assume good faith. In other things: I do agree there is COI/OWN issues, but I dont agree you resolve COI/OWN by deletion. On reliable sourcing I already stated my position. Thanks! -- Cerejota ( talk) 22:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion as no consensus The article did contain a sufficient indication of notability if speedy A7 is what is meant - it noted a chapter in a book (maybe a second book too) is devoted to Gomez, that's enough for A7 by any measure. and (b) is just not a criterion for deletion. The discussions were a train-wreck, where a flood of verbiage drowned out ordinary, rational, policy based AfD argument. Numerous questionable sources obscured some good ones. The post deletion seems to be an amusing microcosm of this. Hoping to change to a no consensus through discussion, I commented at closer MZMcBride's page in the midst of numerous edit-conflicting and obstreperous comments from the pesky anon, and my comments were apparently and entirely pardonably missed in this new flood of comments. John Z ( talk) 08:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The admin that deleted it clearly gives his biased opinion in his talk page after the deletion, calling it "garbage" an obvious conflict of interest. He even admits to believing in Wikipedia's Deadline [2] but never gave a reason for the deletion and it was clear the article had no clear consensus and should have been marked as such. The article was tagged {{ rescue}} With an article surviving an initial AfD over two years ago, an improper 2nd AfD as proved when "relisted" in the first deletion review, as a minimum it should have been marked for {{Closing}} because at least one admin and one editor were working on the article (see Kuru/Miranda) Wiki deletion policy states [3] "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 [4] and the more common ones include, {{cleanup}} for poor writing, {{stub}} for a short article, {{verify}} for lack of verifiability. Obviously none of the tags were considered for an article already on Wikipedia for over two years.-- 72.191.15.133 ( talk) 09:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion I re-read the AFD and would have closed identical to MZM. Further, there were not procedural faults in his close. Valid close within discretion, nothing to do here. MBisanz ^talk 09:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AFDs consensus measures arguments against policy not headcount and this article demonstratively failed to cite reliable sources to show the subject meets our notability guideline. Rather the offensive comments the adherants of this person are requested to come up with the sources if they have any hope of restoring this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as no consensus - again I must admit I was a bit surprised at this. I would hope with a history such as this article had that any non-clear keep or delete AFD would be be a no consensus with a closing admonition that editors needed to take the rewriting to heart. The core of the discussion was that this subject is notable enough - even if just barely - and that the article needed to be cleaned up of POV issues. These are not delete options. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it needs work are also not reasons to delete. We even had an editor sign up to rewrite if it passed AfD. To me the entire process has been an exercise in some rather bad faith assumptions and counter to building good articles. Newby editors should be encouraged in the wiki ways - not beat on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and cyberly called turds. The latest AfD was hardly a clear delete and - I would agree with nom was leaning toward keep and clean-up. -- Banjeboi 11:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• I have read that AFD as well, I was planning to close it as Delete, but with one of my large rants, yea that's an Endorse Secret ^account 13:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The article may be a biography of a living person, but there's no particularly contentious or harmful material in it, which means BLP doesn't apply. The article included multiple sources when it was deleted and the earlier AFD mentioned several others, meaning the article is verifiable (contrary to what the people voting delete claimed). If the article should be deleted, then it should be based on the correct reasons. These weren't it. - Mgm| ^(talk) 13:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse . I spent a number of hours on this article yesterday trying to improve it. The only sources as of close (and after a lot of discussion and attention, with many editors championing the saving of this article were). 1. Mr. Gomez' personal websites. 2. The website of a digital flash card maker he has a business relationship with. 3. His publisher. I could not find a single reliable, independent source to establish notability. Neither could Mr. Gomez himself (who is the 72.191.15.133 above as per this diff [ [5]]). Mr. Gomez authored this page. He has campaigned for its survival and even he can't find a single, reliable, independent source to establish notability. Without the enforcement of basic standards, wikipedia risks being turned into an advertorial myspace. As for no consensus -- it was very hard to tell what was going on there with Mr. Gomez IP badgering all comers (the IP at one point claimed it was not gomez, but simply a fellow member of his "artists collective"), participation of seemingly related IPs, and two or three named SPAs. Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • cmt I notice that John Z. above references Gomez short interview in a book as establishing notability. That book was an offering of specialty photographic how-to publisher Amherst Media. The author has only been published by them. Amherst Media is also Mr. Gomez' sole publisher. That's cross-marketting, not establishing notability. Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • reply As I explained on the deleted article talk page, that argument is very strange, is never applied in the countless other instances it could be, and is contrary to policy. If someone publishes his works (only) through Oxford University Press, then a biography of him published by Oxford is not non-independent, not ruled out by any policy, and establishes notability. I and other experienced editors believed some of the other sources were reliable; careful examination and a trip to WP:RS/N might help for cases in dispute. John Z ( talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Seeing as how the AFD was extended on the same page as the original debate, the closing admin might have accidentally included the old discussion in their decision. - Mgm| ^(talk) 13:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle ( talk) 13:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Keep If I read AfD2 correctly, the article was closed as delete and reopened for more input, with the additional votes received being overwhelmingly in favor of retention. Absent a very clear and acceptable explanation from the closer for why consensus should be disregarded, the close would appear to be out of process. Alansohn ( talk) 13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to No concensus/Keep I was an early "Weak Keep" but the ultimate concensus was rather stronger than that for keeping I thought. Both sides had points, but it seems clear to me the guy could meet notability criteria. I'm rather puzzled at the current status - has this been closed? Johnbod ( talk) 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn Consensus was clear. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I agree--- the consensus was keep. The right question to ask is "Is there somebody out there who wants verifiable information on this guy, and would be prevented from getting it if this article is deleted?" Since he is a published author, with some secondary articles reviewing his work, I think the answer is yes. His article reads like a promo, but the way to deal with that is to mercilessly cut down the article to a reasonable length, with only the notable aspects--- literature and photography--- not stuff like his passion for mountain biking and his love of Japanese theater. Likebox ( talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to No Consensus - There simply wasn't a consensus here t delete and the "voters", with exceptions on both sides, generally used valid arguments based on guidelines. The topic passes WP:BIO, but was written as a self-aggrandizing autobiography, which the delete voters only focused on.-- Oakshade ( talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: Per administrator's bias. I was a surprised by the comments in the [ talk page] of the administrator who closed the deletion:
  • "I do not believe that we should indefinitely host garbage articles on living people."
  • "Ahh, yes, you caught me, detective."
  • "I always make my main target Articles for deletion, because those are such a joy to close and never result in any talk page drama. I had never read this article prior to today, but garbage is garbage, regardless." These are not comments made by a newcomer but an administrator, no excuse whatsoever.-- Jmundo ( talk) 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, I agree no consensus would have been a better close than delete. I don't think anybody here is debating the point that the article does have issues with it, but the way to solve them is not through deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: The latest rewrite of the article had the same issues as the previous one. There are only four independent references, three links to the individual's personal website, and over all much more text than should be necessary for the references cited. As such, it is a poorly sourced biography of a living person, and at times was written by the subject himself. Also, in the AFD, there were a slew of single purpose accounts requesting that the page be kept. These are things which should be considered, not the "no consensus" based on head counting (I also completely forgot about this AFD as it seems it was brought back from the dead).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 22:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, and it's clear from the comment by 72.191.15.133 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) that the subject is here trying to protect his fifteen minutes of wikifame, yet again.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Really? A personal attack? Really? Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 22:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Having a page on Wikipedia is not an honor. It is not a privelege, and it should not serve a person's vanity. It is a source of information for other people who care. There's no such thing as "Wikifame", nobody pays attention to your Wikipedia page unless they are searching for information specific to you, in which case they already have some faint idea of who you are. The criteria for inclusion are notability and verifiability. This article is probably too long--- a paragraph stating that the subject is a photographer with a certain corpus and certain publications is probably enough. But that can be easily arranged, so long as this article is not deleted. Then, in twenty years, if Rolando whatsisname becomes more famous, people can add more stuff. Likebox ( talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The article was never re-written. In fact, you were the admin that speedy-deleted it without notification, and when questioned, relisted it for a 2nd AfD, only after requested. This was an article that had passed an AfD two-plus years prior. Then when it was in your 2nd AfD, you would delete the verifiable links of sources immediately and eventually blocked the page. And when the article was relisted after the deletion review, which placed it in a "relist" state, it was relisted with an old version, not the one that Kuru placed in Miranda's box for reworking. That's the problem, there are too many copies of the old being judged when a new is what is required. And there were newer versions, of which you deleted, these had independent, verifiable links, including to Lexar the same reference for at least five photographers listed here on Wikipedia. You actually took this article and the request for the 2nd AfD personal as seen in your comments here and on the 2nd AfD. You even discounted the Deputy Public Affairs of Operations from the Air Force stating that he had a vested interested therefore conflict. Alleging the U.S. Air Force had a vested interest is a reach. BTW, he even gave his government email for confirmation. You even discounted and personally attacked Jerry Avenaim who posted in favor of non-deletion. I guess he's your next target so you can reach your deletion quota for future votes in the Wikipedia political beauracrcy. Under Wiki's own policies and procedures there is no-excuse for immediate deletion of an article that survived an AfD for over two-years, then a deletion review that it survived (because of you), only to be back here again. An Admin and an Editor both were working on it. I think everyone here should read Delta Airlines in-flight magazine this month on how Wikipedia has lost it name for acts such as these. -- 72.191.15.133 ( talk) 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Rolando, I think you are notable enough in your field for a wikipedia entry. I base this opinion on published sources and on your body of work for notable publications (including bio blurbs etc).
    • But let me be blunt: attacking the project will get you nowhere and in fact apparently prejudices some editors against the article. I suggest you refrain yourself from further discussion, and let people committed to the project to handle this. I particular your repeated attack against the integrity of the project is a serious offense in the community, and if you continue to do it, you will be banned. And I will support the ban. In fact, I'll raise the proceeding. So please chill and let us work. And this includes if the article is restored: in wikipedia we have a concept called WP:COI and we really frown upon self-editing. In fact, our founder Jimbo Wales has gotten into serious trouble for doing that a few years ago. We are very serious about this, and he was severely treated by the community. So its not personal, its the way we have always worked.
    • In a further note, you seem to be confused about how notability works in wikipedia. Jesus H. Christ can come from the sky and say you are notable and it doesn't matter unless a reliable source says that he did. So any first person recommendation is invalid, unless it is published in a reliable source in a verifiable news or peer-reviewed research article. This is not open to discussion. This is the way we work: WP:5P, WP:NOTE, WP:V. V is my favorite: verifiability not truth.
    • I feel the dedication of a chapter from a book, along with your body of work, supplemented by your published works, establish notability in your field, in particular in generating glamour photography techniques, and in general contributing (in a small but notable way) to the expansion of your field. Anything else you try to bring is superfluous, and quite frankly, doesn't help your case at all. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Damn, all of this in one afternoon. This article never "passed" any AFD. The first one was flooded with Mr. Gomez's posts about why his page that he wrote should remain, and the "rewrite" I refer to was by Bali ultimate in the past few days (I assumed it was a rewrite). Anyway, given the fact that this page had been completely out of my mind for the past three months, looking back at the article, I still have the opinion that Wikipedia's policies say there should be no page on any photographer Rolando Gomez. I cannot see anything that supports the fact that he is notable as (to use the example brought up by the subject himself) Avenaim is. Avenaim has 12 independent sources, none of which are his personal website. If we can get the same for Gomez, then by all means his article should be restored, if not at least rewritten from scratch without the subject's interference in writing.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I agree about COI, not notability. I think the article should be restored and edited - the sources are few so the article should be fairly short. But we include things even when the sources are few: EComXpo has very little sourcing, most of it primary or republished press releases, and yet it has survived AfD. So the article is short, but was felt notable. About COI, I have asked the author refrain from editing, and he seems to agree. If he doesn't, we should raise a formal ban proceeding for disrupting editing. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 15:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus, restore the Miranda version [6] of the article and carry out some additional NPOV editing, without interference by the subject; an article is stronger if weaker sources and weaker claims are omitted. He is notable enough for an article. The sources are not all that great by our normal standards, but I think they do indicate notability, which is why I !voted to keep at the 2nd afd. Along with JoshuaZ, I think the chapters in the Perkins books are the decisive sources, though I would additionally like to se a review of at least one of his own books. There will probably be a subsequent AfD in a few months, but I say overturn-- not relist-- because I do not think we could usefully hold another discussion at this point. At that future AfD, I would very strongly advise the subject to not to participate in the discussion. I think the delete closing was based on the manner of argumentation used at the afd, with the attacks on those urging deletion. I don't the least blame the closing administrator--the discussion there would try anyone tolerance, and the discussion here is even worse. A more restrained defense would have lead to an easier keep. If we punished notable people with Conflict of interest who do not pay respect to the conventions of discussion here and our rules about canvassing and the standards that we use or notability or sourcing, by removing their articles, we would not ourselves be showing proper Neutral POV. I don't think the positive or negative feelings of the subject should be taken into account in biographical articles. I couldn't care less about his opinion of himself, but i don't see the reason for letting it affect the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Closing admin had no dog in this fight and no predisposition, as much as some folks would like to believe otherwise. Delete was a judgment call based on the direction of the discussion and single purpose accounts involved. No reason believe it was improperly handled. If proponents want to give the article another shot, they are free to do so, although further involvement of the IP would jeopardize that effort. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as no consensus - I've re-read the the Afd nomination at least four times already, and I still can't see a consensus, even once you disqualify all the keep votes that were a)single-purpose accounts, b)Gomez himself, or c)unsupported. I can see how a closing admin might weigh the arguments differently than I would, so normally I would endorse in this situation, however the closing admin's above opinion seems to reflect that he unconsciously used his own judgment of the article to close the Afd, instead of his judgment of consensus. (Disclosure: I closed the first DRV discussion, which concluded as relist. Disclosure 2: I was also notified of this by the author, apparently in a mistaken belief that my closure meant I was on his side.)-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as no consensus and restore the Miranda version [7]. Ignoring both the unprofessional, biased comments of the admin, and the self-promotion by Mr. Gomez, a few undeniable facts emerge. First, the lack of sources was the primary reason given for the initial deletion -- but the version of the article reviewed had already had those sources purged by the admin. Second, there are sources that sufficiently support Mr. Gomez's notability. Third, although this forum is not (nor should it be) majority rules, there certainly were enough valid opinions stated by both sides that a clear consensus was never reached. The only rational conclusion is to overturn the deletion. And if the article remains fluff-free and concise, there is no reason why it should not pass any future AfD. Agletp ( talk) 08:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • — Agletp ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Overturn There was no consensus for deletion at the AFD nor was an overiding policy argument made that was not addressed by those who made valid arguments for keeping. It appears that the closing admin let his own opinion affect his closure rather than the opinions expressed in the AFD. Davewild ( talk) 08:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Closing admin ment well and was being bold, and just wants to make wikipedia a better place. But I think there was no consensus on the issue from the discussion. Edits should be made to the article, and in some months it could be revisted again. But I don't think it's healthy (no matter how well intentioned) for "administrative activism". Icemotoboy ( talk) 08:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• I have just realized that Aervanath re-opened the 2nd AFD when relisting following the previous DRV. This means that there have effectively been two AFDs that have said that the article should be deleted. I have fixed these mistakes and made the 3rd AFD page with the 2nd AFD transcluded on the first's.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 10:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I apologize for my error, and appreciate Ryulong's fixing of the situation I created.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Even put together and eliminating the IP and SPA issue, the obvious result is still a weak keep or no consensus. I really think we need to refocus on the purpose of AfDs, in particular WP:IDONTKNOWIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:VOTE. If a disucssion reaches no consensus, then close as such. Don't WP:WHINE. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 15:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, AfD is not a vote, MZMcBride's rationale as stated above is sound, but it would have helped if there had been more text in the closure statement. Guy ( Help!) 18:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per weight of arguments at AFD. Very strong arguments for deleting--lack of sources, for one--and very weak arguments for keeping--sources may turn up someday, for one--works out to a sound decision. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, The close was within the admin's discretion. We can wish that the AfD discussion had been of higher quality, but the closer has no control over that. In this case there was a lot of promotional input: 70% of the words in the AfD were from the article subject or from people who have few other WP edits, and this may have interfered with having a mature dialog about the referencing problems. There seems to be an impression that, if we endorse this deletion, we are forever depriving WP of an article on Rolando Gomez. This is not necessarily the case, and I haven't seen anyone object to the creation of a better article in user space. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "70% of the words in the AfD were from the article subject or from people who have few other WP edits ..." As someone pointed out above, I have few other edits. I've never denied that. That's simply because this is the first article I've referenced that was under review for deletion. Why should that make my opinion less valid than that of someone else? I have not resorted to trash talk; I have not jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions; I have not slandered anyone. And yet I'm accused of interfering "with having a mature dialog about the referencing problems"? I strongly agree that a mature dialog was interfered with -- but I think you'll find the primary culprit is not among the group you targeted. Agletp ( talk) 19:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • This is the only article you've ever been involved with. You even requested that it be undeleted not a few months ago. You have no other edits other than to DRVs and AFDs about Rolando Gomez.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Again, I've never denied that. And, again, why should that make my opinion less valid than anyone else's? When I come across another article that I can contribute to, I will. I prefer not to comment about things unnecessarily. I have no shortcomings to compensate for by needlessly editing wikis. Surely you're not suggesting that sheer volume validates an opinion. Agletp ( talk) 08:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
        • But You Have Not. You have only edited Wikipedia when this article was in danger of being deleted or there was a chance it could come back.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 09:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
          • You keep arguing a fact that is not and has never been in dispute. You also continue to fail to explain why it is at all relevant to this discussion. There is no necessary correlation between volume and substance. To suggest that someone's opinion is irrelevant because he or she is new to a forum demonstrates a lack of understanding on many levels. Agletp ( talk) 10:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
            • The fact that your account has only been used in the fashion I have described means that your opinion has less weight in these matters. There is absolutely nothing in your contributions other than the 2nd AFD and the past 3 (current one included) DRV discussions. This has nothing to do with newness. This has to do with the fact that your account has only been used to try and salvage this article from deletion.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 10:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
              • Oh. So, it's not that this was my first posting. It's that I didn't have any other postings prior to my first. Well, you certainly make it difficult to argue with that logic. I doubt you could make it any clearer. Really, I do. It's quite obvious now why you think my opinion has less weight. Agletp ( talk) 11:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
                • You really don't understand at all. It's not that you're new. It's that you've only discussed this article since you've registered in September, which was when the second AFD took place. Your account fits extremely well with this essay, and could very well be an exemplary definition for the essay.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 21:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
                  • I understand completely. It is you who is missing the point. Have you even read the article? Because I'm fairly certain you have never treated me with civility or tact. Instead you immediately accused me of being recruited and having a biased opinion. Then, after I explained that was not true, you basically called me a liar. You have not focussed on the subject matter, but rather the person. I do understand the concern that a lot of people have with "single-purpose" users. I really do. But contrary to your claim, it does NOT automatically mean my opinion carries less weight. But you are entitled to your opinions. I just won't be listening to them any more. I tire of thee, Ryūlóng. Agletp ( talk) 06:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply
                    • Well, maybe I'd change my mind if you edited other pages. But I don't see that happening at all.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 07:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This in theory is correct but is incorrect in practice. Once it's deleted, a new article with the same sources is going to be speedy deleted. Likebox ( talk) 05:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That would be the case if the new article is nearly the same as the deleted one.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
      • In theory. I tried to recreate "David Krikorian" after delete, and it was speedy deleted. Likebox ( talk) 16:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
        • The stub you created following the deletion of David Krikorian did not show the man was notable, nor did the article prior to deletion.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 10:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
          • How can an independent who gets 17% in a 3-way race not be notable? He's on congresspedia. Likebox ( talk) 15:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply
            • That's "Congresspedia." This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia most definitely has different inclusion requirements than COngresspedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply
              • Wikipedia is a repository for sound, verifiable information. The standard for inclusion is "published and verifiable", which means somebody wrote about you, and "notable" which just means that there's a bunch of people outside your extended family and friends who would read the article. A subject is notable when approximately 2000 strangers want specific information about it (for example, I'd estimate there's only about 2000 people who care about flipped SU(5)). This is a lower standard than that of Congresspedia or of any other encyclopedia, which have a much more specific mission. It is therefore not an honor to be listed on Wikipedia. In order to stop senseless deletion of information that 2,000 people would be interested in, you have to consider that you are very likely one of the 5,999,998,000 who are not. That means that you have to stop judging notability by the personal standard "am I interested in this?". Likebox ( talk) 21:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion per the admin's discretion in weighing up the relative merits of arguments made at the AFD. A perfectly reasonable close to eliminate a COI-ridden page of an unsourceable non-noteable. Eusebeus ( talk) 23:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Here is some reliable sources:

• Hutton, Jim (April 29, 1995). "Vietnam Then and Now". San Antonio Express-News. pp. 1B. Retrieved 15 December 2008.
• Robinson, Carol (March 31, 2006). "Hometown folks fret over Attalla teen's centerfold". The Birmingham News. Vol. 119. p. 1. Retrieved 15 December 2008. Then, at a Miami shoot, a photographer asked her if she'd be interested in testing for Playboy. She ignored his e-mails, but a month later, she went to a modeling workshop in Georgia and met photographer Rolando Gomez. He showed her work he'd done for Playboy, and asked her if she was interested. {{ cite news}}: |section= ignored ( help)
• Jaime, Kristian (January 13, 2008). "Going digital with Rolando Gomez". La Prensa. 20 (25): 8B. Retrieved 15 December 2008.

The La Prensa article provides detailed information on Gomez. There are a few notable Rolando Gomez's, so finding info on Rolando Gomez photographer is not a simple task. The above three sources probably represent the low lying fruit. No opinion on AfD3. -- Suntag ☼ 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment These are all unimpeachable evidence of notability, they provide verifiability are reliable source. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - non-notable subject without sound evidence of notability; sockpuppets and s.p.a.s cannot turn this into a mere vote. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Orangemike, except for the anon IP user, what other SPA are there? and who are sockpuppets? If you are going to throw accusations around, please back them up. However, we are supposed to be discussing an article and its inclusion, not editor behavior. Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Nathaniel Wedderburn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Has now played football professionally ( http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=49805). Now meets point 1 of this criteria. CumbrianRam ( talk) 01:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion as he has now played for a professional club in a professional competition. FYI, though, WP:FOOTYN was never accepted by the wider community as a policy, so we shouldn't really be citing it. – Pee Jay 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/Allow Recreation He appears to have played in three games so far as a full-fledged professional. Alansohn ( talk) 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. Doesn't have the same issues as at the time AfD'd, so this one's a no-brainer. I'm happy to restore the article for you to work on it, or you can start from scratch, your choice. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 05:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Rio (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

No References Hi. I would like to revert deletion of this article. The relevance of the band throughout my country is evident. If you can't find any references, I could provide them. Please let me know what more steps to follow in order to get the article back. Armando 200.37.120.18 ( talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. No explanation has been given why the unanimous consensus to delete the page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIO (band)) should be overturned. A sourced userspace draft would be helpful to justify restoration. Stifle ( talk) 09:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - agree with Stifle, create a user space draft, include sources, then it could possibly be moved into article space. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply