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. Courcelles 01:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

tagged for notability for over 5 years. Seems to have been created as an advert for Mary Morrison's business. Boleyn (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 13. Snotbot  t • c »  12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• … but appears to be about an encyclopaedic topic nonetheless. Amazingly, this article has no mention of Josephine Diebitsch Peary and Robert Peary. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Uncle G is right, as usual. See 200 Years of Dolls for an example of detailed coverage. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the references and further reading show that this is a notable topic deserving of a proper article. LadyofShalott 01:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – LadyofShalott 02:10, 14 January 2013 (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.