Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endia Beal


 * 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. Seems to meet WP:GNG based on the sources discovered. RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Endia Beal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think she is yet notable. Though her work has appeared in exhibits, there is no evidence any of it is in the permanent collection of a major museum, nor that it has received substantial criticism. The refeces present in the article are essentially press releases.  DGG ( talk ) 09:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Not enough for WP:Artist. It is unfortunate that the BLP has the bland promotional tone of a PR release but even a rewrite in conformity with Wikiepdia standards would not save it. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep I think she meets WP:GNG, though perhaps not yet WP:ARTIST. The Financial Times has a review of a book in which she is featured, called Firecrackers: Female Photographers Now (Google Books has no preview, unfortunately). As well as the BJP article cited already, there are other articles, eg Huffington Post, the Winston-Salem Monthly , the Greensboro News & Record , and a year ago Time included her in an article on '12 African American Photographers You Should Follow Right Now' . Just over a year ago, the Boston Globe review of a group exhibition, Race, Love and Labor, said Beal's was the most powerful work in the exhibition . RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Pinging to see the sources posted by RebeccaGreen, who shows a clear pass of WP:GNG as usual. It seems the coverage is even WP:SUSTAINED, ranging from 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018). Analyzing them...I was not able to check out the newspaper source or the book review which is behind a paywall. Time (magazine) one is a passing mention and a citation at that (but the fact she was included by them is a good sign). But HuffPost, Winston-Salem Journal and News & Record coverage per Rebecca and British Journal of Photography, Vice (magazine) ones in the article is all more than a mere mention which fits the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, A person may not pass WP:PROF nor WP:ARTIST, but passing WP:GNG also should be considered as is the case here. Promotional tone issues is not what AfD is about per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of in-depth coverage means she meets GNG easily. WP:ARTIST is a less certain bet, but that's sometimes a tricky criteria to use since if a person meets GNG but not the much tighter ARTIST standard, their article is still be kept per our rules. In some ways the WP:ARTIST standard is irrelevant as we regularly include artists whose work does not meet it, but instead meets the lower GNG standard.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ARTIST #3 and 4a (her work is the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and has "won significant critical attention"), which are basically WP:GNG in disguise. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, #3's requirement for multiple articles is not talking about the artist in general, but rather about a single work or body of work: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"... and that work/body of work has generated multiple independent articles.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Still delete. The Huffington Post is unreliable for the purposes of BLP, as not all of it has editorial control. Local newspapers are not either, because they will normally cover anything about local residents, and are therefore indiscriminate. Inclusions with a large number of other people is often not substantial coverage--the material needs to be actually examined.
 * Additionally, the only rational way of interpreting the special notability guideline for artists is as a limitation on the GNG. Any artist whose work is in a major collection will in practice always have the necessary sources, and any artist whose work is subject to significant critical discussion inherently by definition has the sources. ( I'm aware this is a disputed interpretation. To clarify it, If this is kept, I would have to appeal it to deletion review, and if it kept there, I would need to start another RfC on the meaning of NCREATIVE. I shall not do so here, because she is possibly reasonably close to notability, but wait for an example where using GNG gives a really absurd result.) DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I agree with that HuffPo has been doing a lot of "user submitted" content lately entirely devoid of editorial overview, although I don't see that to be the case here. Many of the sources, as has already been stated, are much too local/niche and lack the vast audience required by the GNG. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ )  talk  18:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly see the list below, which includes BBC, Guardian, Time, Vice and the British Journal of Photography.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. In addition to the sources presented herein, there's also more listed below, as per my WP:BEFORE searches. While some of the sources below have some interview content, they also have a fair amount of independent analysis to meet WP:BASIC. North America1000 18:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * British Journal of Photography
 * Slate
 * Winston-Salem Journal
 * Slate


 * Comment Leaving aside HuffPost, a Gnews search returns:
 * Time Magazine: "12 African American Photographers You Should Follow Right Now"
 * Greensboro News (GoTriad.com): "Endia Beal makes art to inspire and give voice to the voiceless"
 * British Journal of Photography: "Ednia Beal's Am I what you are looking for?"
 * BBC News: "Chicago: Three artists challenge African-American Stereotypes"
 * Artnet News: "7 Breakthrough Artists to Discover at the 2018 AIPAD Photography Show"
 * CBS Chicago: "How Do You See Me’ Wants People To Ask Questions About Stereotypes"
 * Vice: "Am I what you are looking for?"
 * New York Times (blog):"Young, Black, Female and Envisioning Corporate Life"
 * Slate:"White women, black hairstyles"
 * The Guardian:"The Newest Americans: portraits from the 'most diverse' US university"
 * The above sourcing is independent, in depth in several cases, and in very reliable publications.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: per WP:BASIC based on the sources provided above. Also, perhaps opinion and user generated pieces are not reliable, but this one was written by Claire Fallon, a "Books and Culture Writer" at Huffpost (appears to be an employee). Thsmi002 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * keep I think she's been shown to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing I'm prepared to withdraw the AfD, on the basis of the BBC account above (but I do notice that most of the articles are very similar, suggesting they are based upon the same PR. But this is a field where one cannot completely eliminate PR-stimulated sources, if the PR agent does a very good job of getting the coverage).  DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)`
 * keep per RebeccaGreen's sources as ThatMontrealIP has analyzed. Also, as I was reading the BJP article I realized I knew the work already -- I share this as a way of anecdotally showing notability. --Theredproject (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources North America1000 found prove notability.  D r e a m Focus  17:08, 12 January 2019 (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.