Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Layla Love - Knowledge

Source 📝

230:
more unsettling claim was that Gloria Steinem, social activist icon, formed a nonprofit with this person. It was a fundraiser project not a nonprofit and not Steinem’s project. Steinem is not connected by any admission or credible journalism. A blog post mistakenly identifies her as a cofounded and is not a credible source. Almost every citation I requested was a reverted edit as was a notability claim I put forth. There was even a claim this photographer was in the White House permanent collection. That would be easy information to find if the truth. The Women’s Museum mentioned has no mention of the photographer besides it closed over a decade ago so a photograph could not be in any collection. The galleries listed doesn’t mention this photographer either in searches. The year born was incorrect. There is no L.E.A.F. Foundation.
321:: since none of the above actually constitutes a proper rationale for deletion (which would address the issue of whether sourcing available was sufficient to demonstrate that the subject of the article meets Knowledge notability requirements, rather than consisting of ill-informed evidence-free assertions regarding Knowledge article content, and likewise evidence-free attacks on the integrity of more or less everyone except the initiator of the discussion), this AfD should probably be speedily closed as malformed. 408:, were Love is quoted as "I count my years as a student at Richmond among the best of my life. They were the catalyst for my successful career as a world-renowned artist." (Really, can anyone be so immodest?) is pure PR. Any source that says: "Please contact Robin Anderson at outreach@laylaloveart.com for further info." should have been dismissed as neither independent nor reliable. 229:
I found this biography to be advertising a Shopify page firstly. As I researched the claims within I found no proof Bjork and Pink posed for this photographer as claimed. I soon found that the picture of Pink was a snapshot of her talking to another person in profile so it was a gross exaggeration. A
572:
almost every claim made in the article fell apart under closer scrutiny. Sources repeat what the subject has been telling them, but the claims in the sources are so extraordinary that cannot be used in the article without much better evidence in multiple independent reliable sources. The remaining
363:
2: the nominator appears to be a single purpose account who has been repeatedly warned that their single-minded focus on gutting this page and launching personal attacks against its original creator violates core policies. There is nothing to be gained from a prolongued notability discussion under
505:- I think this AfD should be withdrawn. The nom contains no policy rationale; it contains unverifiable statements about a living person. While there is no rule that says a new user can't PROD or AfD an article, perhaps it's better to wait until one has a deeper understanding of how WP works. 198: 404:, No, our decision should not "rest on art and writings". It should be informed by the quantity and quality of coverage in independent, reliable sources. That has been sorely lacking. A source like 338:: While I agree the article needs better referencing, I believe that Layla Love has a career and publications written about her and her career that confirm notability as an artist and author. 281: 422:
What I meant was reliable source coverage of her art and writings. I agree the Richmond ref is perplexing, as it is from the school (?!?), yet has that link to website.
247: 159: 387:: Much of the opposition to the article voiced by the nominator is about the philanthropy content. Any decision on notability should rest on Love's art and writings. 192: 298: 264: 106: 91: 52:. If there is inaccurate or unsupported content, it should be corrected or removed, but there appear to be adequate sources to support notability. 531: 535: 523: 486:: Sennagod has again deleted referenced content and refs, stating the ref (DUGGAL Visual Solutions) is a blog, which it is not. 543: 86: 79: 17: 132: 127: 136: 213: 180: 119: 100: 96: 539: 359:
1: no rationale for deletion has been provided that has any connection to policy. Arguably there is a case too for
633: 40: 612: 405: 560: 527: 174: 326: 629: 595: 491: 474: 427: 392: 343: 36: 170: 616: 599: 582: 564: 547: 514: 495: 478: 461: 431: 417: 396: 379: 347: 330: 310: 290: 273: 256: 239: 61: 510: 373: 306: 608: 578: 413: 231: 206: 440:
Putting aside various oddities in the nomination, I don't see good evidence that she meets either
220: 556: 235: 322: 75: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
628:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
591: 487: 470: 445: 441: 423: 401: 388: 360: 356: 339: 57: 506: 457: 365: 302: 123: 186: 574: 409: 285: 268: 251: 590:: The Gorezi ref has several photos of Love with Steinem (and text), so not fiction. 153: 573:
claims are based on those same sources that we already know to be untrustworthy.
469:: After filing the AfD, Sennagod deleted referenced content and refs (reverted) 53: 453: 115: 67: 406:
https://www.richmond.ac.uk/art-loses-its-ego-when-its-paired-with-purpose/
607:
While the article needs cleanup, there are enough sources for notability.
555:
rationale for deletion is not based on policy. (came from ANI btw).
624:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
149: 145: 141: 205: 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 636:). No further edits should be made to this page. 297:Note: This discussion has been included in the 282:list of Photography-related deletion discussions 280:Note: This discussion has been included in the 263:Note: This discussion has been included in the 246:Note: This discussion has been included in the 248:list of California-related deletion discussions 219: 8: 299:list of Artists-related deletion discussions 107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 296: 279: 265:list of Women-related deletion discussions 262: 245: 7: 24: 92:Introduction to deletion process 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 538:are some easy ones to find. 82:(AfD)? Read these primers! 653: 617:11:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 600:03:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC) 583:12:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 565:12:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 548:16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 515:15:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 496:02:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 479:09:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC) 462:22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 432:12:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 418:11:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 397:01:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 380:22:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 348:15:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 331:15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 311:13:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 291:10:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 274:10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 257:10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 240:04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 62:21:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 626:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 364:these circumstances. - 522:Tons of good sources, 540:ScottishFinnishRadish 80:Articles for deletion 313: 293: 276: 259: 97:Guide to deletion 87:How to contribute 644: 536:Psychology Today 370: 288: 271: 254: 224: 223: 209: 157: 139: 77: 34: 652: 651: 647: 646: 645: 643: 642: 641: 640: 634:deletion review 524:The Daily Beast 366: 286: 269: 252: 166: 130: 114: 111: 74: 71: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 650: 648: 639: 638: 620: 619: 609:Jackattack1597 602: 585: 567: 550: 517: 500: 499: 498: 464: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 382: 350: 333: 315: 314: 294: 277: 260: 227: 226: 163: 110: 109: 104: 94: 89: 72: 70: 65: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 649: 637: 635: 631: 627: 622: 621: 618: 614: 610: 606: 603: 601: 597: 593: 589: 586: 584: 580: 576: 571: 568: 566: 562: 558: 557:Lavalizard101 554: 551: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 532:NY Daily News 529: 525: 521: 518: 516: 512: 508: 504: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 482: 481: 480: 476: 472: 468: 465: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 433: 429: 425: 421: 420: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 400: 399: 398: 394: 390: 386: 383: 381: 377: 376: 371: 369: 362: 358: 354: 351: 349: 345: 341: 337: 334: 332: 328: 324: 320: 317: 316: 312: 308: 304: 300: 295: 292: 289: 283: 278: 275: 272: 266: 261: 258: 255: 249: 244: 243: 242: 241: 237: 233: 222: 218: 215: 212: 208: 204: 200: 197: 194: 191: 188: 185: 182: 179: 176: 172: 169: 168:Find sources: 164: 161: 155: 151: 147: 143: 138: 134: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 112: 108: 105: 102: 98: 95: 93: 90: 88: 85: 84: 83: 81: 76: 69: 66: 64: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 625: 623: 604: 587: 569: 552: 519: 502: 483: 466: 449: 384: 374: 367: 352: 335: 323:AndyTheGrump 318: 228: 216: 210: 202: 195: 189: 183: 177: 167: 73: 49: 47: 31: 28: 592:David notMD 488:David notMD 471:David notMD 424:David notMD 402:David notMD 389:David notMD 353:Speedy Keep 340:David notMD 193:free images 507:Netherzone 368:Astrophobe 303:Netherzone 116:Layla Love 68:Layla Love 630:talk page 575:Vexations 446:WP:ARTIST 442:WP:PERSON 410:Vexations 361:WP:SKCRIT 357:WP:SKCRIT 287:Spiderone 270:Spiderone 253:Spiderone 37:talk page 632:or in a 232:Sennagod 160:View log 101:glossary 39:or in a 588:Comment 503:Comment 484:Comment 467:Comment 385:Comment 319:Comment 199:WP refs 187:scholar 133:protect 128:history 78:New to 570:Delete 534:, and 450:Delete 171:Google 137:delete 54:RL0919 528:as if 454:Hoary 452:. -- 214:JSTOR 175:books 154:views 146:watch 142:links 16:< 613:talk 605:Keep 596:talk 579:talk 561:talk 553:Keep 544:talk 520:Keep 511:talk 492:talk 475:talk 458:talk 428:talk 414:talk 393:talk 375:talk 344:talk 336:Keep 327:talk 307:talk 236:talk 207:FENS 181:news 150:logs 124:talk 120:edit 58:talk 50:keep 444:or 355:by 221:TWL 158:– ( 615:) 598:) 581:) 563:) 546:) 530:, 526:, 513:) 494:) 477:) 460:) 448:. 430:) 416:) 395:) 378:) 346:) 329:) 309:) 301:. 284:. 267:. 250:. 238:) 201:) 152:| 148:| 144:| 140:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 60:) 611:( 594:( 577:( 559:( 542:( 509:( 490:( 473:( 456:( 426:( 412:( 391:( 372:( 342:( 325:( 305:( 234:( 225:) 217:· 211:· 203:· 196:· 190:· 184:· 178:· 173:( 165:( 162:) 156:) 118:( 103:) 99:( 56:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
RL0919
talk
21:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Layla Love

Articles for deletion
How to contribute
Introduction to deletion process
Guide to deletion
glossary
Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Layla Love
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.