Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitty Crimes

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. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Crimes[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I do not see any basis for notability , but knowing my inability to judge in this field,I bring this here for community discussion, rather than list it for speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel she may meet this criterion for notability "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city"- especially has she has recieved a good deal of attention a queer rapper in Colorado. She has been frequently covered by the Colorado Press including a lengthy profile in Westword.--Awatkins123 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can't find much on her actual music but she has been sufficiently noticed by the queer/LGBT press, and several such sources are already in the article. An argument can be made for passing #1 and #7 at WP:NSINGER. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passed GNG. - Scarpy (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of broad, significant coverage. One source doesn’t cut it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the reasons given by the people who want to keep article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2019 (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.