Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu


 * 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 redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective. While there are some "keep" arguments, none refute the argument that this article subject fails the GNG. History will be left intact for those who have expressed interest in merging. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Emanuel Admassu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was deprodded with the rationale, "...since subject meets WP:NACADEMIC 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (Rice Design Alliance Award)". However, that is not one of the awards which would meet that criteria. Absent that, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it is clear this isn't a NPROF pass. I think it is probably TOOSOON for NARTIST, as being in an exhibition (not permenant) in MoMA is a major milestone but probably not sufficient by itself.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, after reading the unconvincing argument by the article creator below, in my mind this isn't close to NACADMIC. I don't see SIGCOV, and it is a TOOSOON situation for NARTIST.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective as alternative to deletion, now that a suitable redirect target was created.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The person proposing to delete this article claims that the award the subject received is not an award that meets this criteria. This is simply wrong, The award meets exactly the criteria put forward under the objectives hence the subject qualifies to be listed here. The 'Rice Design Alliance Award' is an award given by Rice University to 'recognize the work of exceptionally gifted national and international architects'. So there should not even be a discussion on this topic at all since this is a mayor academic award from a highly ranked academic institute. Soupmaker (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker
 * WP:NPROF criteria-2 is for the likes of the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize for History. The Rice Design Alliance Spotlight Award does not reach that caliber. Please avoid attacking other editors.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not attacking anyone, I am simply. In regards to your argument on Criteria 2, please keep on reading that chapter and you will find this piece of information below:

-Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize).

So, again, Rice University is a notable academic society (which I am sure we can agree upon) and has given the subject an award of academic prestige. Hence this award is valid to qualify under this criteria. Soupmaker (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker
 * , this is the 4th or 5th time you've called me a racist. After the first time, I was willing to ignore it. After the second or third time it was pointed out to you not to engage in personal attacks. And after that you've now refused to understand how inappropriate your behavior is. Instead you've doubled down and referred to me as a racist two more times.  Either you apologize, and retract ALL of your personal, unfounded attacks, or I'll be forced to take this to ANI, which is something I am loathe to do.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969 and are now also threatening me here with repercussions I had to escalate your behavior to ANI. Soupmaker (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker


 * Administrator's note: Discussion of users is not appropriate here. This is a location to discuss the deletion of the article. Stick to the arguments and do not attack the editors themselves. Discussion of editor behavior can happen on the user's talk page or at WP:ANI. Personal attacks are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Little sign of WP:NPROF; it would be surprising if an assistant professor passed that criterion.  The most credible claim to WP:NARTIST is inclusion in the MOMA show + coverage of that (for subcriterion 4b).  I'm a little skeptical, but am interested in hearing from folks having more experience with AfDs on visual artists. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify or redirect: (and salt either way): When an article creator has repeatedly pushed an article into mainspace not via AfC (which his their right) and where the legitimate questions if notability has been achieved it is expected a WP:New Page Patroller presents the article to AfD which is what I see here. And it is what we need front line NPPs to do and we need to support them in doing it. In terms of this article I see this is quite possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON.  The article is probably WP:V throughout; the question is more about WP:SIGCOV with WP:RS and its probably something like 1+½+½++½++½ equals 1 which is really frustrating for the article proponents.  I steward a handful of articles in draft somewhat like this in draft currently ... one additional WP:RS and they'd fly into mainspace.  I've actually wondered if the Black Reconstitution Collective (Black Reconstruction Collective?) is more possibly notable entity than the subject but that might be again problematic, and even more so than this bio.  The current arguments lead me to believe not ready for mainspace, an excellent WP:THREE presentation would cause me to change my mind.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)  Probably should have noted Black Reconstruction Collective as more notable than Black Reconstitution Collective. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated my !vote as redirect target now exists and am sort of neutral on the redirect/merge business if people want it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep for the coverage of the MOMA show and the co-founding of the Black Reconstruction Collective. This received a lot of press, although it is true that the press mostly focused on the collective as a unified entity, and did not cover the individuals as much. WP:NARTIST provides specifically for the situation where an artist has been a part of a significant event in art history: "The person's work (or works) has... been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Was it a "significant exhibition"? I think so, seeing as it ran for three months and MOMA calls it "first exhibition to explore the relationship between architecture and the spaces of African American and African diaspora communities". So it's plainly a never-before held exhibition at the one of the (top ten?) most prestigious museums in the world. Was his work a significant part of said show? I think so. He was there with ten other artist/architects. He was a founder of the collective that the show grew out of. Significant is tough to gauge, but I think his participation was important and relevant. I imagine many of the of the Black Reconstruction Collective architects might have articles here. What they did as a group is actually historic in terms of the art world, and the coverage shows it.--- Possibly (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, here are sources covering the MoMA exhibition and the Black Reconstruction Collective
 * Curbed.com 1 2 3
 * Hyperallergenic.com 1
 * artnet.com 1
 * New York Times 1
 * The Architect's Newspaper 1
 * Architect Magazine 1
 * Archinect 1
 * House Beautiful 1
 * Art in America 1
 * Artforum 1
 * LA Times 1
 * Guardian 1
 * Boston Globe 1
 * Architectural Record 1
 * I think this speaks to the significance for the show pretty clearly. --- Possibly (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For the show perhaps, but this isn't the show but the bio of Admassu who is mentioned but briefly in most of the sources above or not at all (e.g. the Guardian piece you link to).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * perhaps a redirect/merge to an article on the collective? It looks to me like the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the Career section in the current article could be adapted easily for such an article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding Detsche Welle article on MoMA show to the above list. --- Possibly &#9742; 03:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I note a number of things, let alone the fact it's just awesome if not awesomely concerning there exists Wikipedia:WikiProject Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). Far too many sources to look at; needs 3 best really; and ideally where url-access is not limited and ideally not firewalled per NYT for me.  Those that I've looked at seem passing mention or no mention; The Linkrot susceptable and url-access limited Architect Record has articles for some individuals for the BRC but not the subject of this AfD; noteability is not inherited and seems to apply here per WP:NOTINHERIT so really I see this adding evidence that a keep !vote is currently not appropriate.  Anyway Russ Woodroofe's suggestion that I might warm to would require an article to pre-exist in mainspace such as Black Reconstruction Collective (Which has 5 or so potential valid red-links and oh look - for which a draft happens to have been started, but its a draft not mainspace and lack of sustain might be a tough transition). Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are saying contradicts WP:ARTIST. Reviews of an exhibition that an artist participates in are not cases of WP:NOTINHERITED. We use them constantly to determine notability of artists. The artist actually does get notability points from serious and significant exhibitions, as WP:ARTIST specifically points out.  --- Possibly &#9742; 02:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. If there is an article on the collective or on the exhibit, both of which are plausible articles, then a redirect should be done.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect. Participation in a single group show, albeit at a major museum, is not enough by itself for WP:ARTIST nor for WP:INHERITED notability from the group to the artist. And as the discussion above has already determined, WP:PROF is out (it's not really aimed at academics who are practicing artists in any case). So we're left with WP:GNG, for which we need in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. But none of the sources in the article provide that, and the only sources identified so far in this AfD are about the group and the show rather than about Admassu individually. There does seem to be plenty of coverage of the collective, so a redirect is also possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Updating to redirect now that the article exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There now exists uncurated start'ish class article Black Reconstruction Collective with redirect . David Eppstein has a cited mention on the page so a redirect !vote/!merge votes here should now be feasible to that target, though it is not impossible someone may wish to test that currently uncurated article at AfD for e.g. WP:TOOSOON.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective per, vote of thanks to for creating that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective, to make my earlier question a !vote. There's a reasonable notability case for the collective, but I don't see enough to make individual members notable.   has made a solid start on the page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a reasonable notability case for the collective, but I don't see enough to make individual members notable... As Theredproject points out below, the other nine members already have individual articles on Wikipedia. Do you mean we should redirect those existing articles as well? --- Possibly &#9742; 02:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I glanced at a few of the other articles. Some looked like they might have enough of a case otherwise for notability that I would !vote keep.  In the absence of other notability, I would similarly !vote redirect.  Participation in the collective certainly does not detract from notability, and could contribute to a combined case.  I'm not seeing enough for the current subject to support it, however, at least WP:NOTJUSTYET. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective, as suggested above. This seems a case of WP:TOOSOON for WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF, most likely. No objection in principle to turning the redirect back into a biography if circumstances change at a later date. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per NARTIST 4(b), an exhibition at MoMA is considered a significant exhibition generally, and especially with only 10 artists/collectives in it and extra especially for one that has received as much coverage as this one, as has shown. It is great that someone created an article for the Black Reconstruction Collective but redirecting this article to that page is not a solution here. That page does not describe the members of the collective, and if it did so, it would have main article hatnotes for each of the members of the collective, as they all have pages here.


 * Olalekan Jeyifous
 * J. Yolande Daniels
 * Sekou Cooke
 * V. Mitch McEwen
 * Amanda Williams (artist)
 * Emanuel Admassu
 * Germane Barnes
 * Mario Gooden
 * Felecia Davis
 * Walter Hood


 * And focusing on works in a permanent collection is a little misdirected here, as he is an architect. While there are museums that collect such work (models, etc) that guideline is gearted towards painters, etc. Theredproject (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way: we have an article fore this exhibition, thus it is significant (it is notable). Yes, we have chosen to put that article at the name of the collective formed from the architects in the exhibition, and carrying the same name. But we could have equally created it for the exhibition, with a section for the collective. NOTINHEIRITED is an inadmissible argument in this case, as NARTIST 4(b) literally says it is dependent on inclusion in an exhibition. Theredproject (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NARTIST(b) says "(b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Admassu contributed a single piece out of 24 ( Planetary Scar (Mid-Atlantic Ridge)) to this exhibition which showed the collective's work. A single piece, 4%, is not a substantial part of an exhibition. This fails NARTIST(b), which itself is an approximation as to what is likely to be notable, it does not supersede GNG.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure where you get the claim that he only contributed a single piece, as the exhibition checklist shows three, but that is entirely besides the point. You can't compare an installation with a set of drawings in a mathematical equation. Nor does it matter. We don't ask what percentage of the total works, or square footage, or exhibition budget, or whatever, that an artist represents in an exhibition. We care about the exhibition. Inclusion in the main curated group show at the Venice Biennale satisfies 4(b) because it is Venice, despite that fact that there are usually 50+ artists in the show. And NARTIST does supercede GNG, just like the NSPORT guidelines. Theredproject (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was look at the press release, but you are right that the checklist lists more - 4 pieces by Admassu out of 117. 4 out of 117 is 3.4% of the exhibit, which is not substantial. ARTIST-4(b) is intended for substantial roles in exhibits, e.g. an exhibit devoted to the artist or the artist occupying a large portion of it, say more than 25%. Being a small part of an exhibit, 3.4%, does not get there. And this doesn't meet GNG anyway, which NARTIST-4(b) attempts to predict.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Possibly and Theredproject. sources and achievements establish notability.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: As as aside I've now wikilinked all the members above in the BRC article. I was aware at least a handful has articles but I'd only wl'd one while I was creating it.  I reasonably sure some pass notability, Gooden and Hood spring to mind, others per Admassu here I am far less certain.  I think there may have been an MoMA editathon or something during the Reconstructions: Architecture and Blackness in America exhibition and that might just relate to why some of these articles exist (sadly no images on commons though!).  The BRC article covers the Reconstructions exhibition as a section and their might for instance be an opportunity for saying a little about each artist in the section whilst describing their work but it really needs to be sure in is not WP:UNDUE and promotional.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it seems that you are suggesting that the presence of a MoMA editathon implies that the articles are somehow suspect...? Theredproject (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As &  are likely good faith aware (and seem to have actively good faith dealt with) there was at least one issue from Meetup/Black Lunch Table/MoMA blackness architecture 2021 on this group of artists as evidenced and with {conccerns with {u|Sarabod99}}'s contribution dealt with at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 173.  Given the connectedness of MoMA, BRC, and the Reconstructions exhibition I am musing if the delegates have been used as sort of officialised meatpuppets, but this is not the forum for that.  What I can state with relevance is Admassu's article did not receive edits on 22 May 2021 so no issues here in that respect, though if anything unfortunately adds evidence that his good faith contribution to the exhibition may not have stood particularly out as a significant component of it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a completely different issue. What you are saying in the immediately previous post is speculation and is not relevant here. You are way off topic... you think MoMA and the artists int he Black Reconstruction Collective have some kind of meatpuppet party to create Wikipedia articles? I would dial down your imagination there. There was indeed a "Black Lunch Table" Wikipedia editathon at MoMA on May 22, 2021, but a) that's a good thing, b) I don't think they actually produced any articles related to the show, and c) this is getting really off-tangent. --- Possibly &#9742; 08:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * c. 5 May the [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Black Lunch Table/MoMA blackness architecture 2021 invited articles to be created for BRC members with redlinks, (and for BRC itself!) but by the editathon on 22 May I believe all BRC members had articles. Admassu was not affected by the editathon.  The only issue with that is perhaps editathon participants may not have seen his work as "stand out" significant.  I am now minded there was no coi between the lunch table and the BRC/Reconstructions exhibition; there was a COI editing indicident in that editathon but that was well spotted and addressed. Very relevant is additional specific information about NARTIST 4(b) and I hope to bring that forward in a few hours time.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - with regards to the above comments, neither addresses GNG.  has created a legitimate redirect target.  Absent that, this individual currently does not meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me</i> 03:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

{{talk-reflist}}
 * Keep per Possibly and Theredproject. It seems very clear that WP:N and WP:RS have been established, especially with the improvements over the past few days. Anasuyas (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with Possibly and Theredproject. Improvements have been made and this person definitely fits NARTIST 4(b) if not others. --Heathart (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still see real problems still with WP:VAGUEWAVE comments and a WP:CITEBOMB of external links where Admassu is barely mentioned. As an example {{shaw, 2001)) for the Guardian selects to pick out the works of Williams, Cooke, Barnes and Hood at Reconconstruction but does not Admassu at all.  The recent addition of Harte/Pun up: as a source to the Admassu's article by {{u|Heathart}} could be used to leverage content into that article (and also the BRC providing not WP:UNDUE) - however - the problem is there is sigificant MoMA connection (thus Reconstructions and BRC collective members) as a special edition of "Pin Up" was used and distributed at Reconstructions making it somewhat akin to a non independent catalog entry failing RS.   What is being looked for, and the onus is on those wishing to keep are the three best sources in support of notablilty or sating of NARTIST 4(b) of which issues with have been described eloquently above.(The essay WP:THREE is a good read). — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - the issue with the pinup article is that it's an interview, and as such is considered a primary source, and therefore does not go towards notability.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {{re|Onel5969}} WP:Citebomb is for articles. It is entirely appropriate to point out supporting sources contributing to notability in an AfD, and it is done with great regularity. Similar to NARTIST 4(d), for museum collections, NARTIST 4(b) also does not say anything about sources, it simply talks about being in a significant show.   --- Possibly &#9742; 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see WP:ALLPRIMARY, where interviews are classified as primary sources, as well as further down on that page in WP:PRIMARYNEWS, under 6.1. And GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary. Not sure why you're bringing up citebomb, as I didn't mention that.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 02:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You mention vaguewave and citebomb in the first sentence of your reply above. Onel, Apologies, there was an unsigned comment that merged into yours. it has been fixed. I'm going to stop commenting now.   --- Possibly &#9742; 07:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate seeing the WP:THREE best sources. All I have seen so far was non-independent (e.g. interviews) or mere name drops and mentions in the context of the much larger exhibition. Show me a good trio of SIGCOV (good independent sources who each devote several paragraphs to Admassu) and I'll flip my !vote. At the moment I'm not seeing any good independent in-depth source here.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , no worries. Just got confused for a moment.  Take care.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

{{Talk-reflist}} {{clear}}
 * Keep Meets Nartist, if barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - none of the keep !votes addresses the lack of GNG, and NARTIST does not trump NARTIST, especially when the subject "barely" passes the SNG, if that.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {{u|Onel5969}}, I think you have a typo in your sentence: "NARTIST does not trump NARTIST" -- I think you mean NARTIST does not trump GNG, in which case it is my understanding that is not true. Can you please specify where that is said in the NARTIST or GNG guidelines? Theredproject (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are absolutely correct, the above should read "none of the keep !votes addresses the lack of GNG, and NARTIST does not trump GNG". And absolutely regarding where it says that.  NARTIST is part of WP:NBIO. Before NBIO goes into its list of SNG's, it states, "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's the latter part of that statement which is germane to this discussion. Further down in NBIO it states that if an individual fails "basic criteria but meeting additional criteria", it suggests to "Merge the article into a broader article providing context.", which is what  's creation of a valid redirect target did.  Onel 5969  {{sup|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>}} 00:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {{u|Onel5969}}, My understanding of that paragraph is that it includes typical Wikipedia caveat language, leaving some room for interpretation at all times. To paraphrase my understanding, it says:
 * for the most part, meeting these requirements establishes notability
 * failure to meet these requirements doesn't preclude an article
 * meeting these requirements does not guarantee an article
 * In particular, my understanding is that these caveats are geared towards the sentence that directly precedes this paragraph: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not."
 * I see how you are interpreting the section about if a in individual fails "basic criteria but meeting additional criteria", it suggests to "Merge the article into a broader article providing context." But that is not how this has been interpreted at AfD in the Visual Arts and Artists sorts, NARTIST is consistently interpreted as establishing N. Nor is it how I have seen SNG guidelines interpreted at other sorts. Otherwise, why would we have articles about baseball players who played in one game and nothing else?
 * I find it curious to see that this is the AfD discussion where a number of people who are not as active in the Visual Arts and Artists sorts have come out to dispute this consensus interpretation.Theredproject (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @{{u|Theredproject}}: I suggest personal attack by creator on nom. who is a skilled NPP and the ANI drew me and perhaps others here. It will be for an experienced closer to use WP:NHC & etc. here and to determine if notability criteria e.g. THREE, NARTIST 4b, SIGCOV, GNG is shown met; and the closer will likely be good faith scrutinised for decision justification and my opinion is DRV is (currently) possible on any result if DRV purpose can be met.  A closer might read this as the fact keep !voters feel their argument is weak.  It is currently unclear to me if this 10-day discussion is exhausted ... or if a relist (with a discussion summary) would help the impasse. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {{u|Theredproject}}, I want to point out that the AfD was first listed at Academics sorting, and it also went to ANI. I listed it at Visual Artists sorting a day or two after it opened.  It has surely gotten a lot of attention, but the participants here are well-established Wikipedians, most of whom I know to have significant experience with BLPs.  My own concern with the article is that (as other editors have pointed out) the subject's role in the MOMA exhibition was limited, and its coverage was over a short period of time.  It looks WP:TOOSOON to determine whether this is a WP:BLP1E.  (I would similarly !vote redirect or delete on academics whose only highly cited articles have a huge number of coauthors, or on book authors who have a single reviewed book and little other sign of notability.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to present a source I found when looking for something else. Its from MIT architect channel so not totally random. It may not help but it doesn't harm.  I good faith believe Admassu is first for alphabetical reasons - but as first needs to have impact. It may be this is a repeat of Hartt's video... but I present it here before I lose it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it curious to see that this is the AfD discussion where a number of people who are not as active in the Visual Arts and Artists sorts have come out to dispute this consensus interpretation.Theredproject (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @{{u|Theredproject}}: I suggest personal attack by creator on nom. who is a skilled NPP and the ANI drew me and perhaps others here. It will be for an experienced closer to use WP:NHC & etc. here and to determine if notability criteria e.g. THREE, NARTIST 4b, SIGCOV, GNG is shown met; and the closer will likely be good faith scrutinised for decision justification and my opinion is DRV is (currently) possible on any result if DRV purpose can be met.  A closer might read this as the fact keep !voters feel their argument is weak.  It is currently unclear to me if this 10-day discussion is exhausted ... or if a relist (with a discussion summary) would help the impasse. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * {{u|Theredproject}}, I want to point out that the AfD was first listed at Academics sorting, and it also went to ANI. I listed it at Visual Artists sorting a day or two after it opened.  It has surely gotten a lot of attention, but the participants here are well-established Wikipedians, most of whom I know to have significant experience with BLPs.  My own concern with the article is that (as other editors have pointed out) the subject's role in the MOMA exhibition was limited, and its coverage was over a short period of time.  It looks WP:TOOSOON to determine whether this is a WP:BLP1E.  (I would similarly !vote redirect or delete on academics whose only highly cited articles have a huge number of coauthors, or on book authors who have a single reviewed book and little other sign of notability.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to present a source I found when looking for something else. Its from MIT architect channel so not totally random. It may not help but it doesn't harm.  I good faith believe Admassu is first for alphabetical reasons - but as first needs to have impact. It may be this is a repeat of Hartt's video... but I present it here before I lose it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.