Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menno Baars


 * 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   delete. Black Kite 12:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Menno Baars

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability - simply a couple of stunts. Far too few ghits to imply notability and no references in this article that show it. Being a publicity seeker doesn't make you a notable artist even if you have painted the nose of a small aircraft. Doesn't make you an expressionist either, but that's another story. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  11:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I removed the claim to being an expressionist: this was unsupported by any critical assessment. I also removed some POV language, again, supported. freshacconci talktalk 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - In Wikipedia notability isn't subjective - all that is required is non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. We might think it is silly that this person has been covered for his "art stunts" but the fact remains that he been covered, in detail.  See  and  - note most sourecs are not in English, but they are not required to be to be considered valid. (Also GHITS is not valid argument.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One of these links to "detailed coverage" consists of press releases from Volvo, which IMHO is definitely not non-trivial coverage, the other is to Dutch sources that can't be evaluated by non-Dutch speakers so we don't know if it's non-trivial but I note that there are not very many stories anyway. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources" that's required by WP:N? GHITS is perfectly valid if there's nothing else to go on, which there isn't. In fact it may be valuable "as a negative test of popular culture topics", as in this case. andy (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Actually they're not press releases *from* Volvo. They're from this site: http://www.bymnews.com/ BYM Gallery - Photos of and news about Boats. (Not about art). I can find one article that is promotional about an art show from a local paper (in Dutch - use google translate to get the gist), and another about the single "stunt" listed here. Then, there are several articles that interview heer Baars about his medical practice (and nothing to do with his art). Perhaps the article should be relisted under medical? Deadchildstar (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if he meets notability requirements for doctors, which I believe are pretty rigorous. freshacconci talktalk 15:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Google searched pointed out by Thaddeus do not provide any reliable sources. I searched the archives for de Volkskrant and NRC Handelsblad (two of the biggest Dutch dailies) and found nothing there besides one article naming him as the founder for a website for heart surgery patients. There's no notability here, only a stunt which wasn't even reported on, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Those google sources are utterly useless; they are not in English, are mainly press releases and are trivial. This fella doesn't appear to be all that special. - <font style="color:#EC5800">Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (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.