Deletion of Emanuel Admassu

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  and promotional.  Thankyou
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: for the coverage of https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/5219 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.  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NARTIST)

Comment: to Black Reconstruction Collective, as suggested above. This seems a case of  for  or , most likely. No objection in principle to turning the redirect back into a biography if circumstances change at a later date
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:ARTIST||WP:PROF)

Comment: with regards to the above comments, neither addresses GNG.  {{u|Djm-leighpark}} has created a legitimate redirect target.  Absent that, this individual currently does not meet 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There now exists uncurated start'ish class article Black Reconstruction Collective with redirect {{noredirect|Reconstructions — Architecture and Blackness in America}}.  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. .  Thankyou
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Little sign of ; it would be surprising if an assistant professor passed that criterion.  The most credible claim to  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF||WP:NARTIST)

Comment: 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 ew 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 .  The article is probably  throughout; the question is more about  with  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  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  presentation would cause me to change my mind
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:TOOSOON||WP:V||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:THREE)