Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laughing Baby (2nd nomination)

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) — Yash! ^(Y) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Baby

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

How is this an article? The references are weak and most aren't even reliable. Past WP:ONEEVENT, I don't see why this needs it's own article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From WP:1E "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Since this article is about the "event", (of sorts) this is perfectly fine.― Padenton|✉ 16:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Padenton - The video has received worldwide coverage which passes GNG, ONEEVENT is irrelevant as that applies to BLPs which this is not (I'm seeing this as an event and not an actual BLP although I could be looking at this wrong). –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:WEBCRIT which is the relevant guideline for web content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (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.