Deletion of M. A. Alford

Comment: Understanding that there are multiple independent sources over a spanse of time, I consider this a keep. There are book, internet, and CNN sources that add to the validity . It may be a bit premature of a page but from the consistency of reviews it seems that there will be more information in the future
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I can understand why an editor might doubt the notability of this very young artist from Kansas City. However, his "Sex-Ed" condom art piece has solid sourcing in independent reliable sources, as cited in the article and in other non-local sources such as http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/How-a-high-school-senior-is-causing-a-stir-with-%E2%80%98condom-art%E2%80%99http://www.voceditalia.it/articolo.asp?id=51466&titolo=Condom%20art%20arriva%20dall%27America%20e%20scuote%20i%20puritani. Even so, one might reasonably think  applies, except that there's also coverage of some of his ''other'' work.  The article asserts that he's been written about in a Taiwanese magazine and in the book ''50 Contemporary Artists You Should Know''; this content appears to be off-line and I can't confirm what it says, but we can verify the positive review his underwater series received in a regional arts journal called ''Review'',http://ereview.org/2010/08/11/the-deep-end-of-the-pool-m-a-alford/ which appears to be a legitimate publication consistent with .http://ereview.org/about/faq/  Unless there's some reason not to take all this at face value, it appears to me that he passes , if narrowly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:RS||WP:GNG)