Deletion of Pixrat.com

Comment: per , , and concerns that this is a bad-faith nomination. This article wasn't even in existence for an entire day, before it was sent to AfD.  Give the thing a chance to breathe. Yes, it's written by a new user who's using a more "advertising" tone than he should, but the article is well-sourced, and in my opinion, a good effort by a potentially valuable Wikipedian, who should be encouraged to stay and write in a more encyclopedic tone, rather than just having his article deleted out from under him
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:AGF)

Comment: to the people who are talking about referencing blogs and good sourcing, blogs are not a |reliable source, because anybody can create a blog and upload material.  However, the Indian newspaper qualifies as a reliable source.  We just need one more article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)