Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rolando Gomez

message: Comment.  I've been getting messages here on WP from folks with great comments and suggestions, can someone tell me how to reply directly to them? Or do I just reply on my message page?  Again, still learning this system.  
I do want to note one thing, I came to WP because I was asked, and when I clicked on the search term for "glamour photography" I noticed it was inaccurate and even mentioned at least one photographer that shouldn't be there.  I added my name because I have become a major player in glamour photography as evidenced by Lecia World, Photo Plus Expo, FotoFusion, Amherst Media, Cygnus Publications, Gary Bernstein--himself a legendary glamour photographer and author, etc.
What I noticed was that WP created a link to my name here, but of course went to an empty page.  I decided to add my information to substanciate credibilty, let me explain why I agree and disagree with the WP "Vanity" policy--on the part only about an individual putting their own information up.  First, there is enough "misinformation" out there on the web, including some I've found on myself and even in the definition of "glamour photography" here on this site.  I feel I am the best qualified to give my "bio" rather than anyone else.  An unauthorized biography is not as credible reference to me as an autobiography in general. Ever wonder why  hearsay</I> is inadmissible in court?  
Sure, if I'd read the policies here first, it would've been easy for me to go to the person that suggested I come here and have them enter my information--but does that make it more credible?  Doesn't it seem more credible when the author is the same person written about?  I'm not saying it shouldn't be edited for "style," as I often use the AP Style Guide as that's what I grew up with as a photojournalist, I'm talking about credibility here.  I know of at least one photographer on this site whose "publicist" added his bio, to prevent the vanity issue from arising.  I don't have a publicist, but if I did, would that make my bio less vanity because they entered what I hired them for?
I'm a State Certified Mediator here in Texas, not a lawyer.  I took that certification as one of my upper-level courses while completing my degree in Communication.  One thing I learned is there is always underlying reasons when people disagree.  My underlying reason is to ensure accuracy so then I could go and comment as well as edit as a credible source on topics such as photography (in general, digital and film), not just glamour photography.  Sure, there is a perception of PR, of course, I think anyone listed here receives PR to some degree.  My buddy and fellow glamour photographer mentioned in the definition of "glamour photography" has a bio page here that links to his workshops and describes his involvement in glamour, which I do think is significant and warrants inclusion here, he did play a significant role to glamour, but more for the "Playboy Style" glamour--but I also believe the system needs to be fair too.  There is more to glamour photography than Playboy style glamour.  In fact, that photographer mentioned wrote an article on the dilution of the definition of glamour photography (it's on my website in the tips section) because of people's perception that glamour and nudity go together, which is not a requirement for glamour.
And that is my point--glamour photography--at least on this site, is too defined with nudity when in fact glamour photography doesn't have to include nudity, it's roots are based on Hollywood glamour not Playboy glamour.  Now how can I establish that point in the definition of glamour photography on this site if my credibility is not first established?  I'm not a student of glamour photography, I'm a well documented instructor, lecturer, author, writer and photographer of glamour photography as well as other genres of photography.  When 99 speakers speak at the number one, annual convention for photographers in NYC, Photo Plus Expo, which drew over 24,000 photographers last year, and the number #2 overall attended speaking/lecture presentation was mine and the topic was glamour, I do believe that says something about my position with glamour photography in the industry, not to mention my book on glamour photography is going into a second printing on pre-orders alone, before the first copy event hits the book store shelves.  That last statemenet can be verified by Kate Naverth at Amherst Media and for the record, I've been contracted for the third time to speak again at Photo Plus Expo (2006) and the second time at FotoFusion (2007) as well as other venues.  
Now I appreciate everyone's help.  I seriously do, and I wish I knew a way to respond privately to those that have sent me messages and help here--I'm sure I'll figure it out with time.  Please understand, I didn't come to WP to brag or for PR, I get tons of that from my sponsors and I'm sure my bio page, if included here, would not get enough hits to change my career.  I came here as an authoritive source on film, digital, glamour, and other sources of photography, along with a photojournalism background--but as I was always taught, you must establish your credibilty, and when I saw a link to my name that lead to an empty page, I acted and was immediately labeled "vanity" before even finishing my article--WP's own Vanity policy states to work with the "newbie" and give them time to correct or delete articles before putting a deletion stamp on it and states the reasons why.   I'm already overwhelmed with things to do, book contracts, magazine article assignments, etc., and perhaps I should have told Steve to add my bio here, heck, he's not only the person who told me to come here and help, but he's attended my glamour workshop in the Virgin Islands, who I might add is also a person that actively works on this site and I purposely have not alerted him to this discussion.
I'm about spreading the gospel of photography while helping clean up the tons of misinformation about photography that is out there, especially on the Internet.  While photography is subjective, it doesn't make it accurate just because it's passed the mustard to be listed here--and when I find those inaccuracies, how can I be credible enough to correct them here?  Just because I post a bio on my profile page here?  Just because I list my achievements on my home (profile) page here?  Am I more credible with a profile page or an actual entry in the WP?  I've seen way to many people with "bio" profile pages that stake unwarranted claims--even photographers. We nailed on photographer on my own website forum who staked claims to Italian Vogue cover credits.  Anyone can print a business card.  Anyone can throw up a bio or a web page.  Anyone can say anything about anyone, even here--does that make them subject matter experts or more credible because it wasn't created by the individual itself?  Perhaps the "vanity" policies need to be relooked at in parts, not in whole when it comes to establishing credibility.  
<I>Which is more credible, an unauthorized biography or an autobiography? </I> Again, I'm not a lawyer, I didn't come here to argue a case or write about B-Law, though I've taken it in college, but I am experienced as a book author, magazine writer, speaker, lecturer, instructor, contributing editor and photo editor about photography and it's, something I can write about with credibility.  I did accomplish this credibility overnight, it's been over 27-plus years with credible publication and references.  I didn't come here to add my bio with the only credibility a local paper's article about me.  I've been featured in genre specific magazines, from <I>PhotoInsider, Leica World News, PMA (Photo Marketing Association) Daily, Studio Photography </I> and I've even been informed that an article about me will appear in <I>Rangerfinder--I've seen the article with my own eyes, though I'll admit, I didn't write it.  I have thousands of tearsheets from when I was the Chief of the Pictorial Branch from the Army & Air Force Hometown News, a military version of the AP that caters to over 10,000 civilan newspapers.  I photograph the NBA San Antono Spurs (when I'm in town) for the Spanish newspaper, La Prensa.  You don't get NBA credentials as an amatuer photographer.  I've covered the Olympics, you have to apply for Olympic credentials over a year in advance--they are not given away.  You don't get to ride in a Presidential motorcade as an amatuer photographer, much less have your photo taken with the President just for grins inside a foreign country's Presidential Palace.
I'm not trying to brag here, I'm trying to explain I've worked by butt off over the years to be who I am today.  I have many fans and with success comes those that don't care for you either.  Am I at the top? Nope, nor do I claim to be, but I've earned a right to be where I am today and the people, like the folks at PDN (Photo Plus Expo), Cygnus (Studio Photography & Photo Imaging & Design Expo) and many others feel I've done well enough in photography to speak, write, and be sponsored.  You just don't get sponsored by the inventor of the "35mm" camera format, Leica, based on looks, especially when you're as ugly as I am--Leica sponsors me and featured  me in their Leica World News magazine (dtd, Jan 2006) because of what I've accomplished and they, like I, realize I still have room to grow and part of that growth comes from giving back, which is one reason why I came here after being pointed to this place.
I close by saying I'll look at editing my entry more and I'm thankful for those that have helped and offered advice as well as solutions.   I think others here should take a page from their actions--offer solutions and advice before breaking out the noose (as stated in the WP Vanity policy itself).  I have a super busy schedule, I've worked in 39 countries as a photographer and still travel.  I'll make my edits, if you still feel I should be deleted, then please do so, I respect that, but I ask that you do so fairly and unbiased and look at other photographers' bios listed here too.   I didn't come here to stir a hornet's nest, I came here to contribute.  Again, many thanks to everyone here, and if there is a spell checker on here, can someone show me where?   Sincerely, Rolando Rolandogomez 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)