Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayward Davenport


 * 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   no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hayward Davenport

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

Lacks claim to significance. Exhibiting in one Royal Academy show does not constitute notability. Possible WP:COI issue. JNW (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - three minutes after I restored it, that's fast! I'll be working to improve the article to satisfy notability concerns over the next five days, but won't be able to do it tomorrow as I have pressing real-life concerns. Best, – Toon (talk)  01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The speed was coincidental--we both noticed and were working on this at the same time. As stated above, I think there are several concerns. If there are sources supporting notability, I'll be happy to see this become a keeper. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I think the potential WP:COI requires explanation from the article's author. Additionally, I agree with nom that notability hasn't been established. Details of the Sotheby's sale would definitely help. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Potential COI for an artist over 100 years old? He sounds notable, but we should give the editors more time to dig up the appropriate sources. - Mgm|(talk) 08:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There's another recent Sotheby's lot ; I have referenced the main one. We have hundreds of articles on artists whose work Sotheby's won't be accepting for sale either now or in 100 years time. Probably notable purely as a businessman - purveyor of legal opium to the British masses. There is this  on that. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete THere isn't any substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - fame and notability aren't synonymous (WP:N: It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame...) - it is clearly going to be more difficult to find web-coverage of someone whose work was exhibited in 1894. The fact that his work was exhibited at an exclusive gallery and two peices were sold at Sotheby's indicates notability; that he was head of a notable company further extends that. – Toon (talk)  12:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above..in a way, it seems ok...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 24 April 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.