Talk:Alberto Gómez Gómez

Use of non-free images

Since non-free images such as File:TemporalPanoramaDiscussion-NR-LR.jpg and File:SoundsMural-NR-LR.jpg are considered to be protected by copyright, they need to satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. One of these is WP:NFCC#8 which says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In other words, the usage of the image needs to be "contexutally significant" is such a way that removing the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. Unlike File:Daydreamer-NR-LR.jpg, neither of the aforementioned non-free images are the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article itself, so neither usage satsifies NFCC#8. Simply adding a caption, text to the article, or text to the non-free rationale saying the image is significant is not sufficient because that is considered to be original research per WP:NOR. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies Marchjuly, had I known where to look for your discussion of these image uses, I would certainly have addressed you directly. (Again, thanks for cleaning up the references, and another apology for getting prickly over an obviously unintended artifact of your edit.)

As has been (probably unnecessarily) mentioned, I'm new to Wikipedia policies, procedures and standards. Still, the rules and concerns, as I read them, in WP:NFCC#8 do not state that the inclusion of a specific copyrighted work be the topic of independent criticism unique to that particular work. Such critical commentary appears in the paragraph immediately preceding it and is duly cited. Wikipedia policy states in WP:NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic..." In that the topic is Alberto Gómez Gómez, whose sole reason for notability rests with the art that he has produced and the attention it has earned, it follows that characteristic artworks -- most especially murals with unexpected juxtapositions in time, topic and space -- are essential to an understanding of what that means in this case. Then, too, furnishing text which demonstrates these principles cannot hope to be conveyed in the way that one or two images can convey them. Failing to show them risks missing the point altogether.

In one instance, File:TemporalPanoramaDiscussion-NR-LR.jpg the meaning of the technical term "monumental work" is made obvious by picturing the artist, himself before an enormous piece of work, thereby making the a concrete reference to "monumental". In another instance, File:SoundsMural-NR-LR.jpg demonstrates every characteristic discussed by prior cited criticism, in the immediately previous paragraph -- this can only be considered Original Research in that the specific piece is not named, per se in the literature that I've reviewed thus far (although File:TemporalPanoramaDiscussion-NR-LR.jpg has, and the article can be rewritten to reflect this fact, if this point must be followed rigidly.

As regards its irreplaceable nature, it must be said that a reader might guess what the text referred to, but that guess is just as likely to be as correct as one might make about what is meant by Cubism, having never seen it.

I believe that the real issue is that this article focuses on a living, working artist whose rights must be protected. I cannot agree more with this caution. However, a failure to understand the significance of what that artist has done and is doing is equally detrimental to his interests.

Finally, for what it's worth, the artist has contacted me on these topics. He's surprised and flattered to receive this kind of attention. He has offered to put any and all works into the public domain to demonstrate the meaning of this article and I have insisted that he should strictly avoid any such concession.

In any case, I thank you for your continued aid and contributions and very much look forward to your reply. Best regards, Rmark1030 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What is generally considered necessary to satisfy the "contextual significance" required by NFCC#8 is explained in a little more detail at WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. This is basically the same thing that DES and Cullen said in their answers to your Teahouse question. As for "original research", on Wikipedia this means adding our own interpretations, etc. to articles regardless of whether our interpretation is "true". For example, the interpretation of "monumental work" you provide above is, in the context of Wikipedia, simply your interpretation. If you simply added that as text to the article, another editor would most surely either remove it per WP:NOR or tag it with a "citation needed" template per WP:RS#Responsibility for providing citations. Added the same information in another form like an image does not mean that it does not require support from a reliable source.

Wikipedia is supposed to relfect what reliable sources say about the mural. Using a non-free image which shows Mr. Gomez standing in front of one of his murals and pointing at is not in and of itself really the justification needed per NFCC#8 to show either (1) the size of the mural, or (2) the size of Mr. Gomez in comparison to the mural. What is needed is a reliable source talking about how Mr. Gomez looks in comparison in front of one of his murals, etc. and how that is significant to understanding Mr. Gomez and his art. The same applies to the usage of the other image as well. Simply adding text about it which is unsupported by a reliable source is not enough because what you may write about the image today may be changed by another editor tomorrow, which in turn may be changed by different editor the day after tomorrow. If the original statement/interpretation is supported by a reliable source, then we can always go back and verify it and see that what is wriiten accurately reflects what that source says. We cannot do that with unsupported statements or claims because we then have to decide that one editor's take on things is more "correct" or "relevant" than that of another editor.

Finally, the real issue in my opinion is not how "a failure to understand the significance of what that artist has done and is doing is equally detrimental to his interests" because Wikipedia articles are not about promoting the interests of their subjects per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect what reliable sources say about something (good or bad) in a neutral way, not to make the subject look either good or bad. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent analysis and very persuasive. Thank you for taking the time. Whereas, I get what you're saying, I see that I'm being less than clear because I'm obviously not supporting my own points particularly well. But, never mind that. I see no point in being argumentative for its own sake. This result is certainly sufficient to the day and testament to your good will and patience.

I wonder what, in your opinion, can be done to otherwise improve this article. I can see that more fully supporting its assertions with much more accessible citations would be beneficial (possible, but daunting, considering that they are mostly in Spanish and my command of the language is good, but not quite up to the demands of sophisticated art criticism -- it's been a bit of a slog so far). But apart from that, I wonder what's missing -- in short what I should be looking for to add to this effort?

If you have the time to consider it (or the interest, for that matter) I be grateful to hear your views.

Thanks again Rmark1030 (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll answer in a new section below.- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources and notability

Any editor can nominate an article for deletion, but only articles which cannot be fixed or are insufficiently sourced really end up being deleted. It has to be shown that the subject of an article satisfies Golden Rule, and this is typically done by verifying what reliable sources say about the subject. Since Gomez Gomez is a living person and an artist, the notability requirements in WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO are more a little more specific as to what is needed. Notability only applies to the subject of the article, while verifiability applies to the content of the article. A poorly written article or poorly sourced can to a certain degree be fixed per WP:BEFORE through editing. We cannot, however, make non-notable subject notable through editing. If this article is at risk of deletion, it will be because the sources provided do not sufficiently establish Gomez Gomez's notability.

A number of the sources provided are non-English and non-accessible online. This is OK per WP:NOTENGLISH, and WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT as long as the sources were published and are otherwise considered to be reliable. We tend to try to assume good faith and believe that the source says what it is claimed to say whenever, but some editors might feel that something they can see and verify themselves is needed when it comes to notability. So, if anyone can provide any translations of the titles or the content being cited from these sources, then that might make showing that Gomez Gomez is notable a little easier. They don't have to be perfect translations, but help can probably be gotten from one of the editors at Wikipedia:Translators available if needed.

All of the sources, cited in the article appear reliable to me. The only one I would question is Gomez Gomez's Facebook page. That is a primary source so there are limits on how it can be used. It's probably OK to show that Gomez did say what's in that particular quote, but it cannot be used to show that Gomez Gomez is notable because it's not independent of the subject matter. FWIW, I tried to find some online versions of some of the sources, but only have found two so far.

I did find these in the The Daytona Beach News-Journal print archives, but they require payment to view which is something I'm not going to do. Perhaps someone viewing this is a subscriber who can access them ans see if they can be used in the article.

• "Deltona artist catches vision in Orlando" by Laura Stewart, September 9, 2007, page 04G, article ID: 40099875 [1]
• "Home is Where the Art Is Painter unveils new work inspired by his adopted city, Deltona" by Maria Herrera, March 16, 2006, page 01C, article ID: 409560880 [2]
• "2 artists censored by government" by Staff writers, March 16, 2006, page 06C, article ID: 409560685 (same url as above)
• "Southwest Volusia Happenings" by Staff writers, March 10, 2006, page 09Cc, article ID: 409555669: (same url as above)
• "Artist leads youths to depict better life by painting mural" by Jim Haug, August 7, 2005, article ID:409381217 [3]
• "Group honors Deltonan for promoting culture" by Wendi Jackson, June 11, 2003, page 11C, article ID:0306110398 [4]
• "Museum heralds summer show" by Mimi Carter, July 18, 2002, page 01W, article ID: 0207180356 [5]
• "Lovers' cultural customs differ" by Claudia Moscoso, February 14, 2002, page 01C, article ID: 0202140390 (same url as above)
• "Clearer picture" by Staff writers, January 15, 2002, page 04A, article ID: 0201150017 (same url as above) Note: This is already cited in article.
• "Cultural panel lays down rules for public art" by Laura Stewart, January 12, 2002, page 04C, article ID: 0201120274 (same url as above) Note: This is already cited in article.
• "In future, arts council wants complaints of artwork in writing" by Laura Stewart, January 9, 2002, page 03C, article ID: 0201090182 (same url as above)
• "No Headline" by Staff writer, December 22, 2001, page 01C, article ID: 0112220305 (same url as above)
• "No Headline" by Matt Grimison, December 21, 2001, page 04C, article ID: 0112210384 (same url as above)
• "Censorship or accommodation?" by Matt Grimison, December 20, 2001, page 01A, article ID: 0112200171 (same url as above)
• "America's hope" by Staff writers, December 12, 2001, page 01C, article ID: 0112120272 (same url as above)
• "Artist seeks children's dreams of Americas" by Claudia Moscoso, October 19, 2001, page 03C , article ID: 0110190381 [6]
• "News Watch" by Staff writers, October 9, 2001, page 01C , article ID: 0110090384 (same url as above)

There are many more articles about Gomez Gomez listed in the paper's print archives, so there appears more than sufficient sourcing to establish his notability. I only say "appears" because, as I mentioned above, you have to pay to access these articles which is not something I am willing to do. However, this does not mean they cannot be used as reliable sources per WP:PAYWALL and do not represent the significant coverage needed to show he is notable. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability?

WP:ARTIST establishes the following criteria for a notable artist: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) 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."

When I search online for coverage of this artist, I see a lot of local newspaper coverage in Daytona Beach, and spotty local newspaper coverage elsewhere. I am increasingly concerned that this artist may not truly be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mural "Sounds"

I think the "Sounds" mural might be a little too big per MOS:IMAGE#Size. The image at 600px pretty much dominates the entire section so maybe it should be dropped to 400px or so. The original uploaded version of the image is quite large and might even need to be reduced, but the reader can always look at the image's page to see it in more detail. I also think it's better to have the image justified to the right side per MOS:IMAGE#Horizontal placement because I think the text is slight easier to read this way.

Also, since a direct quote from the Herrera article is apparently being used in the discussion about the mural, it would probably be a good idea to added the original Spanish to the citation template using the |quote= parameter. It can be added as follows: "quote=Original Spanish" to the "cite web" template. More specific details on how this works can be found at Template:Cite news#Quote. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)