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[edit]

Alice Di Micele (edit | 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]
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.