Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Charles Heffer


 * 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 Result was DELETE. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 14:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry Charles Heffer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist. The article itself makes no claims to notability (and was tagged for speedy deletion on this basis): it does not even discuss the subject's art at all. It merely quotes various genealogical entries that the author was able to track down about the subject. (He lived; he married; he had children; he died.) The inclusion of the artist at the BBC's Your Paintings site might appear notable until one notes that this site indexes over 38,000 artists. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction -- buried in the fourth and fifth paragraphs are a brief mention of the artist's works, and their appearance (unverified) in the collections of a couple of small museums. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject seems in fact to lack the notability required for inclusion. While there are some online auctions for his paintings, he has apparently not been covered in depth by any secondary sources. This index merely states that he was apparently active around 1889. There's also a German journal for land survey that mentions one Henry Charles Heffer as the co-inventor of a device for measuring distances, but it's not clear whether this was the same person. De728631 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * delete It's not hard to find out that at least some of his works are held at the Museum of Croydon, which is pretty obviously not primarily interested in collecting the Great Works. Be that as it may, none of the sources for his art have any biographical data other than conjectural dates, and upon reading the article I find that it is almost assuredly a bit of genealogical WP:OR on the part of its author; for instance, at one point the text reads, "I'm unable to confirm this one hundred percent[.]" It would be interesting research if published and verified, but it's not what we should be publishing. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (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.