From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Clearly No consensus between those who believe WP:SIGCOV is now met through new sources and those editors who don't. I don't think relisting this discussion would resolve this difference of opinion on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Alice Di Micele

Alice Di Micele (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unsourced and I couldn't find any coverage. Article was under PROD which was removed then readded by User:Anachronist who claims to have found sources and may have an argument for WP:DRAFTIFY. I didn't see any coverage so I'm personally leaning toward delete, but I'd like to hear them out first. Also pinging User:UtherSRG who initiated the PROD. QuietHere ( talk) 04:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

And a note for anyone searching that there are more results to be found under "Alice DiMicele" spelling. Page was recently moved from that spelling to the current one without discussion which I suspect might've been the wrong move just based on sheer number of results on Google and the Wayback Machine. QuietHere ( talk) 04:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
According to her own website, the spelling is "Di Micele" (with space), but the Internet often removes the space, leading to both versions being visible in search results. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
my name on drivers license is spelled Di Micele for the record. I had know idea what a huge pain it would be for me... I might have used a stage name had I know this 35 years ago... but here we are and I'm still doing my thing. Alicedimicele ( talk) 22:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Soft delete or draftify - I originally removed the prod and created this AFD page, which I subsequently deleted after I actually did find sources, and then I reverted my edit that had replaced the prod with the AFD tag in the article, which had the effect of restoring the prod.
    Plenty of newspaper sources here: https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Alice+Di+Micele%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks - although many of them are just announcements with a smattering of pieces giving significant coverage. Therefore, while I think the article is abysmal and qualifies for speedy deletion in its current state because it makes no credible assertion of significance, cites no independent sources, and fails to demonstrate any inclusion criterion in WP:MUSICBIO, I am no longer convinced that the subject isn't notable because independent coverage does exist. I wouldn't object to draftification. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    That list did provide this piece which is solid coverage, but that's it. There was one festival review where she got one sentence of praise, but otherwise it's all concert announcements without any prose about the subject. I'm still leaning on delete; not much point in draftifying without knowing there's enough coverage to actually save the article 'cause it won't pass notability in draft reviews. QuietHere ( talk) 09:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - She's been around for a long time and seems to get a lot of gigs, because newspaper announcements of her local appearances are pretty prevalent. However, I can find very little substantial coverage of her career of the type that can build an encyclopedic article. She gets some minor coverage like this album review: [1], and this biographical intro: [2]. Unfortunately I can't find anything truly reliable and significant. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I PROD'd, because it was tagged as Speedy, but I couldn't justify under the CSD guidelines. I'm surprised this article has lasted for so many years without a deletion discussion. I'm leaning towards delete, though draftify would be a good option. I'm also the user who moved it to its current placement, based off of the edits on the topic's name and the edit comments about that (which cite the artist's own website). - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. The overall lack of coverage, relatively obscure starting point and external references build a decent-enough case as things currently stand, but what really stands out to me is the lack of any holistic significance that would be beneficial in an encyclopedic format. Regardless of whether garnering attention plays into any of the already-noted sources, the sheer fact that most pieces are mere announcements of the subject's existence - nothing more, nothing less, and certainly nothing of use apart from compiling a loose list of appearances - justify the negligibility of the page's creation in the first place. Without any significant value as a page, there's no legitiamte reason I can find to justify its existence, either in the past or in the future. ^^ Anyone else? TheMysteriousShadeheart ( talk) 19:18, 8 October 2022 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Clearly No consensus between those who believe WP:SIGCOV is now met through new sources and those editors who don't. I don't think relisting this discussion would resolve this difference of opinion on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Alice Di Micele

Alice Di Micele (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unsourced and I couldn't find any coverage. Article was under PROD which was removed then readded by User:Anachronist who claims to have found sources and may have an argument for WP:DRAFTIFY. I didn't see any coverage so I'm personally leaning toward delete, but I'd like to hear them out first. Also pinging User:UtherSRG who initiated the PROD. QuietHere ( talk) 04:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

And a note for anyone searching that there are more results to be found under "Alice DiMicele" spelling. Page was recently moved from that spelling to the current one without discussion which I suspect might've been the wrong move just based on sheer number of results on Google and the Wayback Machine. QuietHere ( talk) 04:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
According to her own website, the spelling is "Di Micele" (with space), but the Internet often removes the space, leading to both versions being visible in search results. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
my name on drivers license is spelled Di Micele for the record. I had know idea what a huge pain it would be for me... I might have used a stage name had I know this 35 years ago... but here we are and I'm still doing my thing. Alicedimicele ( talk) 22:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Soft delete or draftify - I originally removed the prod and created this AFD page, which I subsequently deleted after I actually did find sources, and then I reverted my edit that had replaced the prod with the AFD tag in the article, which had the effect of restoring the prod.
    Plenty of newspaper sources here: https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Alice+Di+Micele%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks - although many of them are just announcements with a smattering of pieces giving significant coverage. Therefore, while I think the article is abysmal and qualifies for speedy deletion in its current state because it makes no credible assertion of significance, cites no independent sources, and fails to demonstrate any inclusion criterion in WP:MUSICBIO, I am no longer convinced that the subject isn't notable because independent coverage does exist. I wouldn't object to draftification. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    That list did provide this piece which is solid coverage, but that's it. There was one festival review where she got one sentence of praise, but otherwise it's all concert announcements without any prose about the subject. I'm still leaning on delete; not much point in draftifying without knowing there's enough coverage to actually save the article 'cause it won't pass notability in draft reviews. QuietHere ( talk) 09:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - She's been around for a long time and seems to get a lot of gigs, because newspaper announcements of her local appearances are pretty prevalent. However, I can find very little substantial coverage of her career of the type that can build an encyclopedic article. She gets some minor coverage like this album review: [1], and this biographical intro: [2]. Unfortunately I can't find anything truly reliable and significant. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I PROD'd, because it was tagged as Speedy, but I couldn't justify under the CSD guidelines. I'm surprised this article has lasted for so many years without a deletion discussion. I'm leaning towards delete, though draftify would be a good option. I'm also the user who moved it to its current placement, based off of the edits on the topic's name and the edit comments about that (which cite the artist's own website). - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. The overall lack of coverage, relatively obscure starting point and external references build a decent-enough case as things currently stand, but what really stands out to me is the lack of any holistic significance that would be beneficial in an encyclopedic format. Regardless of whether garnering attention plays into any of the already-noted sources, the sheer fact that most pieces are mere announcements of the subject's existence - nothing more, nothing less, and certainly nothing of use apart from compiling a loose list of appearances - justify the negligibility of the page's creation in the first place. Without any significant value as a page, there's no legitiamte reason I can find to justify its existence, either in the past or in the future. ^^ Anyone else? TheMysteriousShadeheart ( talk) 19:18, 8 October 2022 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook