Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael giambra

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael giambra

Pure advertisement. Contains more information about Rockstarpix TV than it does about Giambra (coincidentally, the page creator is Rockstarpixtv.) I'm sure advertising the awesomeness of their ... whatever it is, and all the people who work for it, on Wikipedia, sounded like a dandy idea. The problem is, it's not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Jwissick 06:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Having a job does not constitute noteworthiness. CLW 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 08:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wait, Do not delete, please provide some input on how I could modify this to benefit this site. He has historical and biography material for numerous noteable popular rock musicians and he has been working directly with these artists for over 20 years. What about the people that have been interviewed here. He has over 20 years of exclusive interviews with musicians ranging from the Allman Brothers, Weezer, Billy Idol, etc.? Rockstarpix.TV is the next generation of music video television and V-logging (this has been said by artists he has worked with like Billy Idol, Steve Stevens, Jethro Tull). Please don't reply with some terse or snarky comment, Thanks.--Rockstarpixtv 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I edited the article. first problem was that it appears the text was largely from [1]. Next problem was that the article was non-encyclopedic. Terms like "impressive" and "visual showcase" make good advertisment copy, but are not neutral terms and are not appropriate for an encylopedia. I also removed the link to Rockstarpix.TV. It may in your opinion be "the next generation of music video television and V-logging", but hopefully you can admit to being a bit biased as it is your site. Those claims cannot be independantly verified, unless you can cite some sources where someone reputable has made that claim in an article.

• • Comment Check out Billyidol.com and stevestevens.net they have posted links to my interviews with their band directly praising Rockstarpix.TV and my music journalism. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that in this edit Rockstarpixtv (talk • contribs)}} changed the first person of his previous edit to third person: "**Comment Check out Billyidol.com and stevestevens.net they have posted links to his interviews with their band directly praising and noting his production of Rockstarpix.TV and Michael Giambra's contributions to music journalism. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"

I'm not sure this article will survive the AfD even with the changes because there is still the question of notability. I'm not trying to be snarky by any means, but there will be the issue of being able to verify some of your claims about being published. As it stands, I'm not sure being a photographer is any more notable (per WP:BIO)than being say, a bike messenger, even if you've had pictures of musicians published. No Vote because I did the rewrite.--Isotope23 18:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• "His musical clients and portfolio include: B.B. King, The Goo Goo Dolls, Sugar Ray, Fastball, Def Leppard, (etc etc etc) - this almost had me. But then I realized that, no, these are people who Giambra has photographed. He's not a producer, he's a photographer. Is he someone like Yousuf Karsh or Matthew Brady? I don't think so (although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise). Furthermore, Michael (I'm assuming that Rockstarpixtv is Michael?), let's assume that what you say is 100% accurate, that your business is in fact the "next generation of music video television" - in that case, it's explicitly not Wikipedia material. It'll be Wikipedia material in the future, but not until it actually happens. No vote yet, but probably delete. DS 14:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply by Rockstarpixtv (talk • contribs): I edited this because it is untrue and false. Michael Giambra started as a photographer for the Associated Press later moved the NY Times as a freelancer and now currenly works as a video producer --rockstarpix.tv 23:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • No, this user rockstarpixtv is not Michael Giambra. I am a great fan of his work. --Rockstarpixtv 02:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment Michael Giambra started as a photojournalist and photographer, working for NYTimes and USA TODAY / AP. He currently directs and produces music videos and interviews with real top artists and musicians. rockstarpix.tv and Michael Giambra is CURRENTLY being praised by artists like Billy Idol, Steve Stevens and Jethro Tull for his video 'v-logging' interviews and video productions. You can find these references at the bands Official web sites. www.billyidol.com and www.stevesteven.net to verify --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Groeck 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO (assuming someone rewrites it) "Michael’s traditional still silver and color photography archives have been printed, displayed & appeared in numerous publications including The New York Times, Miami Herald, Associated Press ( Miami, Florida Bureau ) Reuters News Service, Associated Press & Gannett Newspapers / USA TODAY and Buffalo Spree Magazine." Kappa 16:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless much more verifiable indication of significance is provided. A few million people may have seen some of his photographs, but I doubt that anyone paid attention to the photographer's name or studio. Agree with DS. Notability does not transfer through a camera to its user. Also, violation of Geogre's Law. Barno 19:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep current article is fine by me. Alf ^melmac 08:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep according to current policy. ··gracefool |☺ 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What current policy? It's nearly useless to say "according to current policy" because there's so many of them; you need to explain how you feel particular policy applies to the current case. In this case, I think our policies on autobiography (we frown on them) and vanity (we frown on that too) apply, and as Barno points out, "Notability does not transfer through a camera to its user". It's true that this person has taken a lot of people over the years of some very famous people. But given that that is basically the definition of his profession, that every celebrity photographer is trying to get photos of celebrities, the question becomes: is every member of his profession automatically notable; or, is there evidence that he is notable beyond the standard for his profession? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here is Michael Giambra's media credentials when he photographed Ronald Reagan for the NY Times at the Toronto World Economic Summit. Oh, did I mention this was one of his first assignements for the NY Times when he was 18 years old??--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull on the day that Michael Giambra interviewed and photographed him. He has won a Grammy Award, is that noteworthy enough Feldspar? He was asked to photograph and interview him by Ian and his management directly.--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ian Anderson won a Grammy award. Did Michael Giambra? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: No, Not yet. --rockstarpix.tv 22:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, Has anyone here ever heard of Billy Idol?--Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Feldspar, what is up your ass buddy? Michael Giambra is not a "celebrity photographer". He is a working journalist and producer. You should try to get your facts straight before you try to classify others. Why don't you tell us what great acomplishments you have produced other than your snarky, anal comments here? He does not "try" to get photographs of famous people. Michael Giambra is invited and encouraged to document them and treated as a friend and a peer by them. I try to remain humble here but I can back up everything I am stating here about Mr. Giambra with his photographic evidence and historical proof. What angers me is that someone with NO credibility (other than your affiliation to wikipedia) can try to berate and belittle his 20+ years of photography, journalism and video production work without ANY knowledge of the truth or facts. --Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep current article is fine by me.--rockstarpix.tv 03:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • First of all, no personal attacks. Second of all, your vote doesn't actually count for much, since you have less than 50 edits, and they fall into two categories:
    • Edits to Michael giambra and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael giambra, by far the majority of your edits, and:
    • Edits to music video and music journalism, all of which consist of merely adding material taken verbatim from Rockstarpix.tv's press releases.
  • In short, the article may be "fine by you", but as both the article's author and as someone who has done nothing for Wikipedia except use it for self-promotion -- ooh, excuse me, Mr. Not-Actually-Michael-Giambra-Or-Rockstarpix-Just-Using-Their-Name-And-All-Their-Press-Material, using it for promotion of your absolute favorite celebrity journalist who-is-not-you-really and his commercial venture but-it's-not-you-even-if-you-chose-their-name-for-your-username -- you really exhibit no knowledge of whether the article is or should be fine by Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Assumption. --rockstarpix.tv 22:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No, actually, not assumption. We know for a fact that you are the article's author; you created the article with this edit, and you spoke of Michael Giambra's experience and credentials as your own in this edit, this edit, and this edit. Did you really think that just changing "I" to "Michael Giambra" and "my" to "his" would erase your tracks? Either when you first claimed to be him, or when you clearly denied being him, you've knowingly lied to us. That's not going to help your case -- neither is vandalizing the AfD, as you've done at least twice: [2], [3]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • *Comment: Feldspar, I disagree with you. I have done something for Wikipedia. I have uncovered a major flaw in Wikipedia. It allows jealous users like yourself to display their hubris as they live inside a false ethos of self-created importance constrained by a fairly "neat-o" online information resource that will soon be replaced by "the next greatest Google". You have no idea who you are conversing with here and your sarcasm-speak is childish at best. Keep on assuming, you are defeating your argument and proving what fool you are. What does it matter if this is my first contribution to Wikipedia? Again, you assume I will not contribute more. I just joined the site a few days ago! Why do you choose to be a flea on the "ass of the internet"? -- comment by Rockstarpixtv (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log); personal attacks struck out
• Comment: This guy seems to have a similar level of notability to Cyrus Farivar, ie not very much but enough Kappa 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Go ahead. Delete it. What a bunch of douchebags?! -- unsigned comment by 64.65.211.35 (talk • contribs), who has also blanked this AfD
• Delete, as advertising, per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.