Deletion of Dannielynn Marshall Stern

Comment: This article meets the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Primary_criterion primary criteria for being a |notable person. I think it is unfortunate that some people feel the need to kill off the article before it gets a chance to grow
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The custody battle of Dannielynn is unique in its circumstances. I imagine the ongoing case will eventually serve as citations for future legal arguments and it is important to have a comprehensive article about her for reference. As stated before Dannielynn does meet criteria of  and while she has not directly done anything more than any other infant can do she indirectly has had a huge global impact. For example, on http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Dannielynn+&btnG=Search+News google news there are currently (at time of my post) 14,399 articles available referencing her name. I say no delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I suspect the "spread of titillating claims about people's lives" has already been achieved by the substantial media coverage on this issue, which means Wikipedia is not the "primary vehicle"; therefore this article is not in violation of  ''per se''.  doesn't specifically exclude infants, nor does it say that the sources must contain substantial coverage about "her as person"; it only says that the coverage must be "non-trivial", i.e. more than a passing mention. If the whole source - and there are six or seven separate sources cited - is about her paternity, then IMHO this counts as non-trivial coverage. As to "not mentioning the baby's name in other articles", that would count as censorship of established information, which would be in violation of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BIO||WP:NOT)

Comment: You may suspect correctly about the news of the different claims spreading in any case. I referecned to  not because I see it violated, but since I would want to stay on the side of caution with respect to an evolving story, instead of having a 'biography' that only consists of paternity claims. In this sense I would also want to clarify my comment about the ''rather'' not mentioning of the name which I don't want to censor as it should be e.g in the Smith article and is present anyway in the referenced sources.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: article cites references which demonstrate multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, therefore establishing notability per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)