Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique van Heist


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 23:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Monique van Heist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 12:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete keep - tough one. It's definitely written like an advertisement and most of the references are self-published. That said, there's at least one independent magazine article there and a couple of awards. I'm swayed by the fact that most of her exhibitions have been in the Netherlands suggesting little impact or notability outside her own country. That's not a deal-killer but combined with the seeming lack of significant coverage, I'm leaning delete at this stage. But a good reference or two would get this over the line (provided it is re-written).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Still not entirely convinced but the sources added by Trackinfo are enough to convince me this probably shouldn't be deleted. Still needs major work, though.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – Agree that the article is extremely promotional. However, there does seem to be enough coverage in Europe to warrant inclusion.  If consensus is Keep, I’ll prune the piece back.  ShoesssS Talk 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Shoessss, I'm genuinely open to being convinced here. Can you give me an indication of which coverage you considered in drawing your conclusion?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs work, but there's enough good material there to make it worth keeping and improving. The number of awards received is worth noting.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of awards won is irrelevant (4); what we need to consider is the significance of the awards. In this case they are almost entirely local and 3 of them were awarded at the same event. That doesn't seem like a demonstration of significance or notability.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 20:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep What we argue first here is notability. I have added a few sources from fashion press "Independent Fashion Daily," "World Fashion Hub," and her resume posted on "Modern On Line."  It looks like she is getting legitimate coverage within her niche.  That established we have no business deleting the article.  As for the self-promotional and self-sourced aspects of the content, that needs to be edited carefully, first checking to see what facts verify from more legitimate sources.  So far from my search (no I have not gone point by point), everything included in the article is backed up. Trackinfo (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The nomination reason is advertising, mr. Trackinfo. The Banner talk 08:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The mention of virtually any entity on wikipedia is a form of advertising--unpaid promotion.  Our job as a reference source is to select from entities that are doing something of significance, or merely ones that wish to use our service to try to promote their way into becoming such.  We judge that by notability, by the coverage they get in media independent of the subject.  If we were to eliminate anybody trying to sell a product, we may as well delete the articles for Microsoft, Apple, Exxon . . . which would be doing our readers an injustice because we are not telling them about things that affect their world.  And most importantly, we do not delete the entire subject, when the solution to a problem might be trimming some content.  That is a process called editing. Trackinfo (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, and I am waiting till you start doing that. I know that you hate AfD's (otherwise you would not follow me around to every AfD and CSD I start) but instead of criticizing my work, you can start to improve the article be rewriting it in a non-promotional tone. And otherwise you can back up my proposal to repeal WP:SPAM, because too many people ignore that policy. The Banner talk 15:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC):
 * Hi Banner, the article has been NPOVd. Please withdraw the AfD! gidonb (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I checked Lexis Nexis and Google Books. Given the abundance of newspaper sources, especially in the largest circulation paper of the Netherlands, as well as magazine sources, there is clearly no case for deletion. There is also some TV coverage and inclusion in books. I suggest withdrawing this nomination as baseless and waste of time or closing the discussion ASAP. gidonb (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over. irretrievably contaminated by the advertising and the PR referencing. I rather sympathize with TheBanner's view that anyone claiming it possible to retrieve an article like this should do so during the AfD, rather than let us hope it will be done afterwards.  DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, the article has been NPOVd. Please review your position accordingly! gidonb (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable subject, bad article, problems fixed as per WP:HEYMANN, meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - there have been some improvements. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as keep, as nominator. Issues solved by radically slashing the article. Hope that it stay neutral now. The Banner talk 14:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! gidonb (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep sources establish notability and the article has been trimmed down sufficiently so that the PR issues are eliminated and it can be built back up to an article. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2014 (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.