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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Sandstein 06:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Giavelli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is apparently an autobiography; there are some nebulous claims of notability so I thought it best to bring it to AfD. The books appear to be self-published (one certainly is, the other two are E-books without attribution) and thus confer no notability. For the rest, I could locate no reliable sources that back up most of the claims and very little of this contributes to notability anyway. I confirmed the existence of an interview with her in a magazine. There is a strong air of self-promotion that would require extensive re-writing if this article survives AfD. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what claims are in dispute. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is being disputed is that the subject has sufficient notability to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. There are also not enough in the way of reliable sources to confirm any notability that is being asserted. Notability and reliable sources are two crucial elements of any Wikipedia article. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that being a corporate c level executive and the sole female cto in california confers notability. This is documented/backed up by a link to a dice interview article (dice is a well established jobs site for the technology industry). There is also a published article linked as well. Whether a book is self published or not is irrelevant since many others use publishing services as the new model also it is a simple matter to register a ISBN privately and then there would be no issue if something is "self" published or not. Whatever airs of "self promotion" are in the disputers head this is simply a information point for people seeking information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the policy on entries for living persons. I will adjust the tone and add more references. thanks. Please forgive my newness to using wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completed my updates of references as much as is possible in the short term. I had to learn how to do footnotes and proper wikipedia style. I have also re-linked the article into other wiki articles so I hope that meets the criticism raised. --Ggiavelli (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may also find the policy on autobiography useful; you can expect this process to last about a week. Ubelowme _U ^Me 00:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By way of comparison look at John Koza's wikipedia entry. I believe this current entry is better cited and more notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggiavelli (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I find the whole gamut of wikipedia rules, not just the rules but the thuggish way things are enforced and the hamfisted aggressive approach people have here to be extremely off-putting to sane logical people who are simply trying to use the system. It's not a friendly place in the slightest and to be honest after my experience here I feel like I will never come back. I find the reactions I have had disturbing to put it mildly. Maybe it is a response to vandalism of articles but at a certain point it becomes no more than petty thought police feeling high and mighty implementing their feifdoms. My submission was criticized for not having external links from other wiki articles. But when I tried to add such a link I got "Oh no you dont you have to discuss your changes in talk first" thats utter nonsense. To get such drivel just shows how far from a wiki this place has become. So basically I cannot fulfill the requirements, because the enforces are psychopaths. so forget it. who has patience for such childish people? I sure dont. Ggiavelli (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion without secondary evidence of notability. I became aware of this AfD through the subject's postings at Neural network. I'm sorry to see a new user become offended by Wikipedia's policies and driven off, but WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the significant coverage about the individual to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.