Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez (3rd nomination)
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  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_photographers 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, , but in this case the notability guidelines that seem to be ''implied'' by  are ''clearly'' not in use.  The criteria for the underlying  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
— User:Kuru, 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:CREATIVE||WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)