Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endia Beal

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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)[reply]

Endia Beal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Endia Beal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • Keep I think she meets WP:GNG, though perhaps not yet WP:ARTIST. The Financial Times has a review [1] 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 [2], the Winston-Salem Monthly [3], the Greensboro News & Record [4], and a year ago Time included her in an article on '12 African American Photographers You Should Follow Right Now' [5]. 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 [6]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Weak delete I agree with DGG 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment Leaving aside HuffPost, a Gnews search returns:
The above sourcing is independent, in depth in several cases, and in very reliable publications.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Endia_Beal&oldid=878589974"