Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Steinberg

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 delete. Both as a result of this afd and as blatant advertising, this could have been speedy deleted in my opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Steinberg

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

Procedural nomination. OTRS permission has been received for the text from a web site, but makes no claim as to notability. Step hen 00:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not advertising. The article violates the neutral point if view and is lacking independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This POV and promotional advert/article fails notability. Edison (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I would hope that the WP:BLPPROD rules apply here... 10 days to supply a reliable reference from an independent source or it should be deleted.The-Pope (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but re-write- The-Pope: The article is not a BLP, it is a promotion of the artist's works. EDIT: I have now supplied an independent reference, and I think the article can be kept, however it has to be re-written thoroughly. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the current article condition, it is a WP:BLP, and does have to comply with the BLP rules. I'm not sure if a single forum/blog post is a sufficient reference.The-Pope (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Blog posts are most certainly not considered independent, neutral, verifiable, reliable sources. There are no such reliable sources in this article at this time. Despite MichaelJackson231's statement above, any article that has a title that is the name (or pseudonym) of a living person, is, by definition, a biography of a living person, and must conform to those exacting standards. This article includes a variety of unsupported biographical information, and is indisputably a biography. In addition, this article fails to establish notability under our clear-cut standards for artists Those are only a few of the reasons why it should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 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.