Deletion of Kim Deanda

Comment: No references for any of the claims is a big problem.  It simply does not assert meeting  or  in any coherent way.  Claims to be considered "legendary" - by whom? Ties to other bands and musicians are confusing and unreferenced, there's some name dropping but it's just "compared to" or "attended a lecture by", and at best "worked with" - in what capacity exactly? Only person contributing content seems to be the subject of the article, which is often cause for serious concern. Ultimately this needs some references to be cited, if they answer my questions, that might change my mind
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NMG)

Comment: Huston, we DO have a problem, she qualifies for , under Wiki's criteria, which is the guideline, and check discussion board, on the issue of comprehension and correct recitation of the actual article, already one major error in review by the second comment. The article is based on common encyclopedic style. The  is the guideline and reference to the airplay, units sold, and cultural contribution of Breakfast With Amy and the number of offshoots in the genre, leading edge in thier genre specifically influencing that ahead of others.  The rest on the discussion page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMG)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: I don't see her satisfying  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NMG)