Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyn Heffernan

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyn Heffernan[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Enough proof of notability. Koala15 (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No meaningful deletion rationale provided. Article already cites substantial coverage from Village Voice, Denver Post, and Huffington Post. --Michig (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it is a meaningful rationale, she does not meet notability guidelines. Just because someone calls themselves a hip hop artist does not make them worthy of wikipedia article. Koala15 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article (and others such as this Spin magazine piece) demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. Gong show 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously notable; the articles referenced are reliable sources, and directly feature the subject. I currently have a discussion with Koala trying to figure out how s/he's judging notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2013 (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.