Deletion of Aelita Andre

Comment: I have reread the article, carefully I hope, and I am struggling to see how it violates any BLP principles.  As far as I can tell it is not invasive, it is not titillating, it is not solacious, it does not reveal any personal details that are not aleady very readily available in multiple places.  I do not see how it supports commercial interests any more than we allow for any other creative person.  I do not see how it encourages exploitation of children.  (While I have been around wikipedia for a while, I am still learning my way so am happy for anyone to offer advice either on talk here or on my talk if they wish to.)  We in wikipedia cannot promote anyone.  We are fully dependent on them being ''already'' noted in independent reliable sources (IRS).  I too struggle with the concept of a 22 month old producing their own art work.  But as stated, we are relient on what the IRS tell us.  ''However'', I have also read in detail a selection of sources quoted in the article, and I believe I can safely say that the current articles does NOT fully represent a balanced view of art critique stated in those articles, and hence the current article fails .  While I still believe the subject is notable, and does not violate BLP, it does need some work to fix NPOV, but this can be readily done from sources already listed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)