Deletion of Endia Beal

Comment: u|Xxanthippe}}, A person may not pass  nor , but passing  also should be considered as is the case here. Promotional tone issues is not what AfD is about per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:ARTIST||WP:GNG||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: Pinging {{u|DGG}} to see the sources posted by RebeccaGreen, who shows a clear pass of  as usual. It seems the coverage is even , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: per  based on the sources provided above. Also, perhaps opinion and user generated pieces are not reliable, but this one https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/endia-beal-photo-series_us_5613e98ce4b0368a1a611e15 was written by Claire Fallon, a "Books and Culture Writer" at Huffpost (appears to be an employee
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: per  #3 and 4a (her work is the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and has "won significant critical attention"), which are basically  in disguise
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:GNG)

Comment: lots of in-depth coverage means she meets GNG easily.  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  standard is irrelevant as we regularly include artists whose work does not meet it, but instead meets the lower GNG standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:ARTIST)

Comment: Meets . In addition to the sources presented herein, there's also more listed below, as per my  searches. While some of the sources below have some interview content, they also have a fair amount of independent analysis to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: I think she meets , though perhaps not yet . The ''Financial Times'' has a review https://www.ft.com/content/905f6288-784b-11e7-90c0-90a9d1bc9691 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'' https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/endia-beal-photo-series_us_5613e98ce4b0368a1a611e15?ec_carp=7579159436923548327, the ''Winston-Salem Monthly'' https://www.journalnow.com/winstonsalemmonthly/image-driven/article_c06bd3c4-f5bd-11e5-a67e-9b66fef73596.html, the ''Greensboro News & Record'' https://www.greensboro.com/go_triad/endia-beal-makes-art-to-inspire-and-give-voice-to/article_ce681273-31ad-537b-97a9-87e3c606bcd6.html, and a year ago ''Time'' included her in an article on '12 African American Photographers You Should Follow Right Now' http://time.com/4673827/black-photographers/. 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 https://www.newspapers.com/image/444616604/?terms=%22Endia%2BBeal%22
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ARTIST)