Jump to content

Talk:Layla Love

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sennagod (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 24 July 2021 (→‎Gloria Steinem has not cofounded a charity as claimed in this biography. It’s a false claim.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notable person? Using a fake name?

Is this a press release or a biography? There is an adult actress that comes up when I search this name. Same person? {BLP noticeboard}}

Sennagod (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it isn't at all rare for two people to share the same name, though performers in the adult film industry generally use pseudonyms anyway. I see no reason to assume they are the same person. As for the article, it comes across as somewhat promotional, but it does at least cite sources which indicate some coverage. Wikipedia has a deletion process, but it is good practice to do a little research before nominating an article for deletion - a badly-written article on a subject that meets Wikipedia notability guidelines requires improving, not deletion. (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump When I just had googled this photographer I saw a picture of the adult actress by the same name calling herself an American photographer. That’s the confusion if same person. Sennagod (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely Google's search algorithm getting things wrong. It does this regularly, and quite frequently implies that it is Wikipedia that is responsible. If I'm seeing the same woman as you, she's doesn't look like anyone born in 1980 (or in 1977, as Google claims). Unfortunately, there is nothing Wikipedia can do about Google's tendency to mismatch data on different subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of posing and photographing famous subjects Pink and Bjork privately is unfounded.

Bjork toured New York City in 2015 and many people photographed her at her public appearances. [1]

True, but does not discredit the possibility that LL did a professional session. What is missing is a verification ref. David notMD (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original claim was there was a fine art photograph of Bjork and Pink. If these women were indeed photographed by this person, where is the proof? Anyone can take an unofficial photograph of a celebrity. There was also a claim this artist had a piece in the White House permanent collection. I found one link that mentioned she had a piece shown at a charity function at the White House regarding flags and Haiti. Sennagod (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She technically took a photo of Pink without her knowledge. [2]

Refs

Her website should be an External link rather than a ref. David notMD (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Layla Love

Notice

The article LaylaLove has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sennagod (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The page has a Shopify link to purchase clothing uses art designs in the textiles not photography. It appears this page exaggerated on loose connections to no less six famous people, one icon is jewelry store, a famous museum, and even The White House. There are no books on this artist unless she is the Layla Love with the sticker collection book. As far as images, I noted Wikipedia shows the picture of the adult porn actress with the same name when you Google the name.

I see nothing notable about this person and I feel the grandiose claims are placed here to sell merchandise. This is a good example of an exaggeration. [3]

Sennagod (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s an example of the gross exaggerations on this page. We see a picture she took of singer Pink talking to someone at a gathering and her bio here says she photographed Pink. [4] This is the most absurd claim here. There are other tenuous claims. Sennagod (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may misunderstand the way the Wikipedia article deletion process works. Exaggerations, or even completely misleading claims, aren't generally grounds for deletion - though they should be removed from an article of course. Articles are deleted if it can be shown that the subject matter - i.e. Love in this case - doesn't meet our notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through what outside independent sources say about the subject, rather than what Wikipedia does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like you added a PROD notice to the page, but I certainly object. Nothing you named is grounds for deletion. If you believe that she herself is not notable, or that the page is so disastrous as to warrant restarting from scratch, then your next step is to send it to WP:AFD. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the article would survive AfD. It wasn't particularly difficult to locate more sources discussing Love and her work in some depth. [1][2][3][4][5] The article needs rewriting, not deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those five articles are written by admitted friends. Two are by the same person. She. had an art show that got some coverage. How is her work notable for a biography here? There was a claim here this artist is retired as a photographer. It seems they are just beginning if their first solo show was 2018. Sennagod (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far no rationale has been given for deletion, and if this were an AfD nomination I would expect a keep or even a speedy keep. I mentioned AfD because it's their prerogative to nominate it if they think the subject isn't notable. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no rationale how this photographer is notable. Is every art school graduate who gets one solo show eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Here’s another example of an exaggeration here “Since then Love has shown with Eric Franck Fine Art in Paris Photo in 2009”. The person who wrote similar info in this entry separate those 2 organizations to sound like there were 2 separate accomplishments. That makes that the 9th bogus account in this biography. That doesn’t necessarily reflect the artist although someone is doing this on purpose. Sennagod (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once a PROD is contested (by removing it from the article), the PROD cannot be restored. Only option left is to initiate an AfD. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump David notMD has reverted my attempts to having this biography being judged notability. Do you feel this biography without the incorrect claims warrants an entry here? Can I revert the undoing of my notability review? Sennagod (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't. As you have already been told, the only option for you now is explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Though I think you will be wasting your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Butterfly nonprofit doesn’t exist and there’s no sign it ever was a nonprofit.

Is this a concept? Nonprofits need to be registered. There needs to be proof or this is another bogus claim or great exaggeration on this page.

“A nonprofit organization is a business that has been granted tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) because it furthers a social cause and provides a public benefit.”

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/Search IRS database of tax exempt organizations

Rise of the Butterfly doesn’t come up in a database of over 1.8 million recognized charities. https://www.guidestar.org/NonprofitDirectory.aspx

L.E.A.F. Foundation doesn’t appear to exist either as a nonprofit or an organisation. Sennagod (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't to base content on contributors original research. Law on nonprofits is complex, and we aren't going to take the say-so of some random poster that an organisation referred to in multiple places in reliable sources 'doesn't exist'.
And please note that the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies to talk pages too. This relentless campaign of denigration of the subject of the biography is getting both tiresome and obnoxious. If someone wishes to start an AfD, they can. Or if they have comments regarding specific article content, directly relating to relevant Wikipedia policies they are welcome to post here. Beyond that, this is not a forum, and off-topic posts are liable to be deleted, and contributors who abuse talk pages to pursue what is looking more and more like a personal agenda are liable to find themselves blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From website: "Rise of the Butterfly is a fiscally sponsored project by Creative Visions, a 501c3" Found it at https://www.riseofthebutterfly.com/support-rise. Creative Visions Foundation is a confirmed 501(c)(3). Ref added confirming Rise was co-founded by Love and Gloria Steinem in 2016. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Your link proves Rise of the Butterfly is not a nonprofit as it uses a nonprofit to fundraiser. Gloria Steinem is not a cofounder of a nonexistent nonprofit no matter where it gets printed. Her name is being used to draw attention which is a positive thing. She is being credited with being there when the photographer had the idea. [5] Show a reference of Steinem discussing this charity or project and her capacity. Sennagod (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. [6] And then go away and find something more useful to do with your life. Wikipedia is under no obligation to 'show references' just to satisfy the partisan and ignorant, and since you clearly aren't going to submit this article to WP:AfD, your repeated WP:BLP-violating attacks on the subject of this article can serve no useful purpose. One more post like this, and I will be reporting you at WP:ANI, suggesting a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t need to read that as I already demonstrated I know the difference. If Gloria Steinem cofounded a nonprofit it would be on her page. This is a bogus claim and there’s not any article that could make it true simply by printing a statement without it really existing as such. I showed the way to search to verify. A fundraiser project was not even cofounded by Gloria Steinem or the press would have covered it and likely interviewed her. Sennagod (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This inappropriate and tendentious fixation with one specific living person looks to me like a persistent violation of BLP guidelines, among other things. I think an ANI post is easily in order. - Astrophobe (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating editor queried

I contacted Thibbs, the person who created this in 2018. Stated no PAID or COI. Although Thibbs is a current active editor, declined to participate in this discussion or improve the article. I still am of the opinion that this should go to AfD rather than by picked at here. The validity of individual refs and overall artist notability can be debated there. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources

The following sources may provide additional coverage of the subject:

Vexations (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All not useful. In the above list, #1 is a blog. #3 and #6 are interviews. #5 is just a few photos. The others have potential. David notMD (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Steinem has not cofounded a charity as claimed in this biography. It’s a false claim.

See Gloria Steinem’s biography here. There’s zero articles on Gloria Steinem talking this project and the only credible claim is she inspired it or encouraged although not involved. Sennagod (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnicura_Tour
  2. ^ https://laylalovecollection.com/products/an-ode-to-pussy-riot-and-women-who-rock
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Layla_Love&diff=1033126314&oldid=1033126130
  4. ^ https://laylalovecollection.com/products/an-ode-to-pussy-riot-and-women-who-rock
  5. ^ https://jacobdevaney.medium.com/rise-of-the-butterfly-artists-tackle-humantrafficking-bd6c22835274
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Layla_Love&oldid=1035174766"