Deletion of Mia Rose

Comment: Whoa, that is a snap judgment, and it is not correct. The reference to the Sun gives a http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article30147.ece brief article but it's legit; the http://www.theage.com.au/news/digital-music/the-battle-for-indie-artists-is-hotting-up-online/2007/02/07/1170524129434.html article from ''The Age'' is absolutely legit (pretty obviously so); and the ''Rolling Stone'' http://www.theage.com.au/news/digital-music/the-battle-for-indie-artists-is-hotting-up-online/2007/02/07/1170524129434.html reference leads not to just any blog--Elizabeth Goodman is, as far as I can tell, a staff writer for the magazine, and the article is long enough. So, there is independent coverage, at least two of those are not trivial and they certainly are independent--she passes . This "Child of Midnight" person seems, possibly by complete chance, to have hit the mark and found the bacon in the pigsty that is sometimes AfD. ;) Special:Contributions/207.157.121.50|207.157.121.50
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: or '''Redirect''' to List of YouTube celebrities. Don't see any points of  fulfilled
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSICBIO)

Comment: the articles on Rolling Stone and The Age are significant coverage, which is enough to satisfy the |general notability guidelines, if the GNG is met, there is no need to pass .  For those who do not consider the articles to be significant coverage  includes people with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MUSICBIO||WP:ENTERTAINER)

Comment: per meeting an important criteris of ... the cult following and fan base... one which leads to repeated coverage in reliable sources. Its a lock per guideline, as guideline does not quailfy nor limit what constitutes a fanbase or cult following. Large is large. Rewrite the guideline if you wish, but she meets it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENTERTAINER)