Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela Gioseffi

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 keep. John254 00:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniela Gioseffi

Daniela Gioseffi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article appears to be in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted." Article is started by user Dorathea, whose entire contributions to Wikipedia appear to be limited to this particular entry and to her own profile; a "Dorathea" is, I think not coincidentally, also named as a friend of the living person who is the subject of the article. (This is inferred from notation by user Dannie66 - likely the same individual who is the subject of the article, as shall be explained momentarily - at one of her edits, stating: "Added a free license public domain, fair use image, a photo of the biographical subject that is in public domain, created by a friend of the author named Dorathea.")

Most additional edits performed by a "Dannie66," whose contributions are also almost entirely limited to this entry. Given the notation that appears under the image file contributed by this user - "Daniela Gioseffi, 2006 at age 66" - and the username - "Dannie66," and the lack of this user's contributions to almost any Wikipedia entry save for this "biography of a living person" page, it seems reasonable to infer that A) the user and the subject of the page are one and the same, and B) this is a vanity page created by a friend of the author and then edited primarily by the author herself.

While, as a Wikipedia reader who has no relationship whatsoever, either personally or professionally, with the author who is the subject of the article (whom I had never heard of until today), I have no grudge against any of the parties concerned. However, it is abundantly clear to me that this qualifies as a vanity page. Even if the author's accomplishments are many (and, in all fairness, they appear to be so), it is not appropriate for she and her friend to be almost entirely responsible for the article's content; this is the definition of self-promotion (particularly given the tone of article, which hardly qualifies as neutral; it reads like a literary agent's advertising copy!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antivandal2007 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 November 2007

• keep this article might have some significant problems, and should probably have a cleanup tag on it, however I don't think it qualifies to be deleted. The author seems to be at least somewhat notable. Someone should just take the time to make sure it's NPOV and cited well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) —Preceding comment was added at 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator is mistaken in his reasoning. The subject of the article is either notable or not, it doesn't matter who writes or edits the page. This article does need severe trimming but the subject of it has been published and there are some external sources. If the nominator thinks the article should be edited, why not edit it yourself? Nick mallory 07:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - it does read somewhat like a vanity page, but the subject appears notable. It's more a cleanup issue than a reason to delete. Mark Grant 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep ==the main reason to keep the article is that all the references and links are valid scholarship and this biographee really has done these things and authored all of the works cited. it's factual and no more an advertisement than any other biographical entry that I've read on Wikipedia. Note how the defenders are brief and objective and are Wiki users of the Wiki community, with pages and identities and other work on Wikipedia, but the attacker is ANONYMOUS and has no other work under her or his false name. I note that this biographee comes up with 78 books which she authored or appears within, at Amazon.com, and is on hundreds of sites if you Google "Daniela Gioseffi." This is an accomplished, widely published, biographee according to Wikipedia standards, it seems. The anonymous person calling for deletion sounds emotional and vindictive and protests too much that he or she does not know the biographee, a strange reason to give for deletion. I'm sure there are many biographees on Wikipedia that not everyone who reads it heard of before, but the accomplishments seem to speak for themselves as do all the objective links. 70.107.4.206 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Sophia Josephs, Professor of WOMEN'S STUDIES and WORLD LITERATURE, (alerted to this opinion by others who are not Wiki writers. This was put up for me by a Wiki user who has worked on other articles. I read Wikipedia often, but have not put up comments before. I felt compelled to defend this article with its Women Studiees resonance. )

• Keep This article should absolutely be kept. Daniela Gioseffi fits the Wikipedia criteria for being notable as she is listed on hundreds of third party web sites and has contributed significantly to the publishing and writing fields for decades. The numerous books, honors and awards mentioned in the article are factual and can be cited by external sources, as mentioned above (Google, Amazon.com, BBC, NYTimes etc. etc.). To say that this article is simply a "vanity page" for promotional purposes is preposterous, as it isn't selling a product or marketing campaign, but listing an accomplished authors' numerous contributions to the fields of publishing and writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmead (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The comments put forward by the person demanding deletion of this article appear personal rather that professional. While the article in question could use editing, the substance is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion. Daniela Gioseffi has been a valuable contributor to the world of literature and social justice for decades. Richard Kearney, Assoc. Prof. of Theatre. Nov. 8, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the subject of the article, I've added viaferable sources, upon request of the author, a professor of Womens Studies in New Jersey, user: "Dorothea." Also, I have given better source for the photo, taken by Pwu Jean Lee, at Dorothea's professional request. Dorothea is not a close friend, but a professional and distant colleague of in New Jersey. I have added links, but I DID NOT COMPOSE THIS ARTICLE, and all publications, facts, and references, as well as links, are correct and verifiable. Also, I have subtracted any subjective adjectives--at Dorothea's, the author of the entry who requested I do so. This is NOT an advertisement, as all poceeds for my books are from not-for profit presses of social conscience, and have now been donated back to those presses. It follows other Wiki profiles, as all seem to agree. I am 66 with a weak heart and my former student, a professor of Women's Studies in NJ, Dorothea, put up this article to preserve my work in writing of peace and social justice issues for over 40 years. She is not a close friend, but a scholar of women's studies. I doubt I will be around much longer, and so students and other professors contributed to the article as they wanted to preserve what they feel is my important work, and to have a reference to it. I have worked on other articles on Wikipedia, i.e. Italian Americans, etc., as I value the efforts of a communal encyclopedia, and have urged fellow professionals to offer financial support and editing, for the sake of avoiding what feminists and ethnic groups call "revisitionist history," that can occur in written and book published encyclopedias, due to editorial bias. I respect the objectivity of Wikipedia, as a communal effort, and usually log in when editing--but have been having difficulty with my log in and attempting to use my old password. The person who marked this for deletion is wrong about "Dannie66" who has contributed OTHER small editings for accuracy to OTHER Wikipedia articles, ie. The Mario Puzo piece, Italian Americans, etc. Would the person calling for deletion mind if a Nobel Laureate were to correct errors in his or her bio or add links for accuracy and scholarship--upon request of the author? Or, is that person just not aware of Women's Studies scholarship and its importance to human endeavors? Does that perosn just simply judge on the basis of his or her own knowledge of what's important? Does that person who called for deletion seem to ignore all the accomplishments and links and references that are accurate and available in the article? Does one have to wait to be dead to receive recognition from fellow scholars and writers? There are many living person's biographies at Wikipedia, as one can readily discover whose entries are put up by colleagues in their given field who respect their work. It is common and usual for colleagues in given field to write of other colleagues. Dorothea is not a friend of Dannie66, but a distant professional colleague. 70.107.4.206 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the main reason why people are discouraged from editing articles about themselves is to ensure that the articles are verifiable; all details should come from a verifiable third party source that others can refer to, and not direct from the person in question. See WP:AUTO for more details. Mark Grant 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC):

• Comment what difference does it make if the subject of the article adds links and references and small corrections if these are valid scholarly references and links, small correction of facts and added ethos. Who is a better source than the subject of the article. Would you mind if Einstein or Maria Curie added a few links to their bios and references, IF they were accurate links and references that are verifiable offerings? Most biographical details of a notible life are achieved by direct interview with the subject throughout the history of biographical writing. Yes? Keep.

• Comment - again, read the WP:AUTO page that I mentioned above; it's difficult for anyone to edit an article about themselves without adding PoV and unverifiable statements, which is why the practice is discouraged. People who don't know the subject and are working from third-party sources can much more easily ensure the article meets NPOV and verifiability requirements. The editing of this article by the subject and their friends appears to be the only real issue here, I don't think there's any doubt that the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Mark Grant 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article is about a well-known, widely-published author. To consider deleting it makes no sense. I don't consider it promotional. If it sounds so, it's just because this person has, in fact, an enormous number of accomplishments. If, however, someone thinks something about it is promotional, they should specify exactly which parts these are and there should be a consensus of whether these instances are or aren't "promotional" rather than factual. If they are found "promotional," then rewrite them in a factual manner--but to delete the whole thing is a ridiculous proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.2 (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.