The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If there is inaccurate or unsupported content, it should be corrected or removed, but there appear to be adequate sources to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Layla Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 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. Sennagod (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 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 Wikipedia notability requirements, rather than consisting of ill-informed evidence-free assertions regarding Wikipedia 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 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. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep by WP:SKCRIT 1: no rationale for deletion has been provided that has any connection to policy. Arguably there is a case too for WP:SKCRIT 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 these circumstances. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 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. David notMD (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • David notMD, No, our decision should not "rest on [her] 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 https://www.richmond.ac.uk/art-loses-its-ego-when-its-paired-with-purpose/, 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. Vexations (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Putting aside various oddities in the nomination, I don't see good evidence that she meets either WP:PERSON or WP:ARTIST. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: After filing the AfD, Sennagod deleted referenced content and refs (reverted) David notMD (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sennagod has again deleted referenced content and refs, stating the ref (DUGGAL Visual Solutions) is a blog, which it is not. [My statement here disputed by an editor on the Talk page of the article.] David notMD (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - 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. Netherzone (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tons of good sources, The Daily Beast, as if, NY Daily News, and Psychology Today are some easy ones to find. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rationale for deletion is not based on policy. (came from ANI btw). Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 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 claims are based on those same sources that we already know to be untrustworthy. Vexations (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Gorezi ref has several photos of Love with Steinem (and text), so not fiction. David notMD (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article needs cleanup, there are enough sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.