Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giavelli

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. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giavelli

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

Article was prodded but a dissent on the talk page brings it here. The subject is not clearly notable and although there seems to be a single reference in a published book I do not think it is a reliable source to establish the term; may be nothing more than a self-created neologism. JodyB_talk 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. Like the nominator, I can't find any mention of it online outside of the single primary source cited. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. -- 120.17.0.168 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (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.