Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia DeMato (3rd nomination)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julia DeMato[edit]

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

No notability outside finalizing on American Idol. No sources. Last AFD keeped through WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing else, with no one even trying to add sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes both #4 and 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Aspects (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The second season of American Idol was its breakthrough year in terms of popularity, and its finalists received more attention at the time, and have lingered longer in terms of public interest, than those of most other seasons of the show. This graph of Google News Archive hits shows a peak of references the year she was a contestant, but an ongoing number of references in subsequent years as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}} Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors shy away from investing time in articles that keep getting put up at AfD, thinking that sooner or later by random chance one of the attempts will succeed and whatever work they've done will be lost. In any case, WP:NOEFFORT suggests that lack of recent editing is not a valid reason for deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (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.