Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maarten Baas


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Maarten Baas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. Insufficient coverage. Ref are all primary and too own work. scope_creep (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 14:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:NOTSPAM and Sockpuppet investigations/Sollewitt/Archive; this is likely undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 15:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not buying the UPE argument. Who would have commissioned this article? I think it's pretty obvious that there has been an attempt on behalf of Carpenters Workshop Gallery by sockpuppets of Sollewitt, in this case Virgisophi85, to insert links to Carpenters Workshop Gallery wherever possible in order to promote that gallery. That is not a reason to delete this article as promotional. It's a third party that is promoting itself. The subject himself has no motive. Baas has received sufficient coverage in the press, including the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/style/05iht-design6.3395890.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=A697A66B7D307144C7B8F5977305A5B4&gwt=pay Slow down, please. The Dutch version of the article, which is somewhat out of date, would also have been a target, and it clearly isn't. FWIW, I just saw one of his "smoke" pieces in the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Fix the article. Mduvekot (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC) F
 * Keep per Mduvekot. Article can be further improved, but I see no immediate reason to delete it. – Editør (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sympathetic to the arguments, but there is not a lot of coverage per WP:SIGCOV. The New York Time entry isn't WP:RS, it is a subdomain that anybody and their granny can pay to write into, i.e. it is an affiliate site. I think the smoke pieces, which are weird and beautiful, are where the notabilties are, if it is likely, but there is not the coverage nor the notabilty at the moment to support an article. scope_creep (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be plenty of significant coverage in Dutch national newspapers such as  . He also won the Designer of the Year award at Design Miami in 2009 . – Editør (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article was written by Alice Rawsthorn, a renowned design critic and regular contributor to the international edition of The New York Times, as well as other publications. The suggestion that she is a pen for hire is baseless. The article should definitely count as in-depth coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. --Lambiam 22:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, and even more so if you include the Dutch sources found by Editør. --Lambiam 18:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent article's improvements, which sufficiently demonstrate notability of the subject. Dutch wiki article is also suggestive of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.