Talk:Layla Love

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)


 * 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennagod (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

She technically took a photo of Pink without her knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennagod (talk • contribs) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletion of Layla Love


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 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 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)

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.

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

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. This is the most absurd claim here. There are other tenuous claims. Sennagod (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I suspect the article would survive AfD. It wasn't particularly difficult to locate more sources discussing Love and her work in some depth. The article needs rewriting, not deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


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

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)


 * 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 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)


 * 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)

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. Show a reference of Steinem discussing this charity or project and her capacity. Sennagod (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Read this. 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * , I've provided more reliable sourcing for the non-profit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your other edits were well resourced except you are mistaken here as there is no nonprofit Gloria Steinem founded with this person. It is possible they discussed their project with Ms. Steinem but there is no evidence Gloria acknowledges even this. If Steinem was involved, where is she discussing it or anyone legitimate and unbiased? Why isn’t it in her Wikipedia biography or her website biography? I suggest you reword your edit to your belief Steinem conceived it with the photographer. Even that sounds like a stretch and a celebrity name drop. Either way, Steinem is not involved based on research. Sennagod (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , here's a bit more sourcing for them being involved with each other. You disagreeing with sources does not negate them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search. I found https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/391902814_201912_990_2021033117841402.pdf (page 63) where Rise of the Butterfly, 609 Petaluma Blvd North, Petaluma, CA 94952 is listed as the recipient of a $5,142 cash grant. Vexations (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, wrt to using pagesix.com as a source, See PAGESIX Vexations (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's one of the reasons I didn't cite it in the article. It's just more evidence it's not some sort of deep web conspiracy theory that a feminist photographer and a feminist activist know each other and have worked on some stuff together. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another and another and another. There's tons of sourcing for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , and it's all unusable, because none of it is coverage in independent, reliable sources. A user post in a blog to "promote the work of local artists" (artinnewyorkcity) a mention in the "indispensable publication for Texas influencers" (papercity), and an announcement for the screening of Sands of Silence: Waves of Courage by the Spain-USA Foundation (spainculture). Vexations (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may be incorrect about independence of sources. If a magazine reports on art and luxury that does not mean it's not independent of art and luxury. If a source deals with art and culture it does not mean it is not an independent source on art and culture. If a magazine is owned by or has an actual relationship with someone, then it may not be an independent source with regards to that person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sources need to be both independent AND reliable. Not just independent. Yes, a blog can be independent, but you do understand that we STILL cannot use it, I hope? Vexations (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , and the magazine with a print circulation of over 120,000 that you don't like because it caters to luxury consumers isn't reliable because? The Spain Arts and Culture site that is run by the Spanish embassy is not reliable in dealing with art? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Subscriber numbers have nothing to do with it. The Daily Mail has over a million, and yet we do not use it, because it is not reliable. My objections to papercity have nothing to do with its target audience. Wikipedia hasn't used it much. . It has no published editorial policy (not one I can find anyway), it doesn't publish corrections (not that I can find anyway). It offers, as "Additional Services": Content Creation & Distribution, Media + Marketing Strategy and Custom Publications. It is not used by other reliable sources as source. The article is published in the society (that's gossip) section. It is written by an editor without a bio . Nothing tells me that this is the result of actual journalism/reporting. No reporter looked at riseofthebutterfly and asked, how is this organization structured, who is on the board, where do their donations come from, how are their funds disseminated, to whom? What exactly is their relation to the Creative Vision Foundation. Have they really only raised $5K in 2019? Nobody spoke to the beneficiaries, or tried to locate them. Nothing. So that's why I don't consider any of these sources you mentioned above independent AND reliable. They just repeat what the subject has told them, which is high in hype and low on facts and quite the opposite of encyclopedic. Vexations (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Creating editor queried
I contacted, 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)

additional sources
The following sources may provide additional coverage of the subject: Vexations (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * http://blog.contrarymagazine.com/2014/11/from-blindness-to-beauty-layla-loves-photographic-journey/
 * http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artmarketwatch/layla-love-11-8-11.asp
 * https://eazel.net/magazine/27
 * https://globalwomanmagazine.com/layla-love-my-art-of-living/
 * https://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/document-hawaii-s-heartening-signage/4608
 * https://www.asifmag.com/story/layla-love-artist-human-trafficking-exhibit
 * https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mr-analysand/201805/art-psychology-and-healing-side-side
 * https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-layla-loves-photographs-reveal-the-truth-about-human-slavery


 * 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)

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)


 * Are you really so utterly clueless that you think Wikipedia considers its own biographies as complete records of everything the subject has done? Moronic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Moronic? If you disagree you can remain civil. I challenge you to find one legitimate article or clip of Gloria Steinem discussing confounding a nonprofit. She isn’t even a cofounder of the project so anyone who namechecks her is doing it for publicity. The support and encouragement of Steinem is helpful but calling her a cofounder is purposely misleading. There are sites that celebrities can be contacted through to help fundraise. One only needs to check her website to see her projects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennagod (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This really shouldn't be that hard. In stead of trying to prove a negative, let's see if multiple independent, reliable sources support the claim.The claim is has two references, both of them are problematic. https://duggal.com/rise-of-the-butterfly-nyc-art-fundraiser-to-confront-human-trafficking-on-view-through-june-15/ is a post by a company that is not even remotely close to a reliable source. We should not cite a printer/signmaker for claims on BLPs. The other source is https://www.riseofthebutterfly.com/, a source connected to the subject, which also means we should avoid it, but it doesn't mention Steinem as a co-founder. This sub-page https://www.riseofthebutterfly.com/about does mention Steinem as a mentor. It refers to Layla Love as "Founder". Not co-founder. So, one of our (not very good) sources contradicts the claim, and we have no independent, reliable sources that support the claim. It should be removed. Vexations (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Vexations David NotMD put it back again ignoring this discussion so I undid it. Why do you think he’s trying to put false information in this biography? Sennagod (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * From the Duggal ref: "The mission of Rise of the Butterfly, a non-profit founded by Love and Steinem, is to provide a sustainable source of funding for grassroots organizations that help women and girls around the world, particularly survivors of human trafficking. The photographs, on view through June 15th, explore and celebrate the feminine, sacred and empowered women, female suffering, and what a healthy relationship with oneself and others might look like."


 * From the Jacoby ref: "“Love has recently brought her service through art to a new level in the launching of her own nonprofit, Rise of the Butterfly, conceived with Gloria Steinem."

If there is consensus that this two refs are not reliable sources, then the co-founding mention should be removed, but that does not negate mention of Rise of the Butterfly as an organization. David notMD (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Organizations and foundations are registered legal entities. I showed the links to search for the possibility and it’s not there. A project is what we have here. This project doesn’t involve Gloria Steinem besides her being aware of the possible inception or received an invitation. It’s another falsehood or distortion as a way to use the fame and prestige of Ms. Steinem. The biography of her namesake website has no mention of any such project. It should not say she cofounded a nonprofit or charity here. The former was the longstanding edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennagod (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

David notMD is using a blog to prove something which doesn’t ring true. Gloria Steinem is not interviewed anywhere about this project and it was a falsehood here she formed a nonprofit. She did neither. A simple search is enough to know plus her website biography has no mention of it. That matters. Sennagod (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under the misapprehension that a random contributor's opinion that something 'doesn't ring true' is relevant to discussions over article content. It isn't. And neither is your strange idea that because you can't find evidence for something via a web search, it doesn't exist. I've no idea why you are so set on denigrating the subject of this biography, but I suggest you stop, and let the AfD discussion run its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That’s absurd to pretend I am being unreasonable here. If it’s not found online and it’s significant then the person who made this biography should not put it in or they might be perceived as having an agenda. I proved this biography had 14 items of deception which I corrected. The deception could be linked to selling clothing. I suggest you stop trying to make me the subject and focus on the article. You have offered little here in discussion but impolite comments my way. Follow the rules. Sennagod (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Books, or just one book
Love's website claims several books, but all but one appear to be on-line free, or perhaps limited edition self-published, rather than publisher published. David notMD (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

DUGGAL not a blog
DUGGAL Visual Solutions is not a blog, so should not be deleted as a ref for being accused of being a blog. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect. It says “Blog” at the bottom of the page and the article is searchable on the blog section. Why are you trying to put in false information to associate the subject with a celebrity? Sennagod (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you are incorrect. What is states at the bottom is that DUGGAL Visual Solutions has a blog - DUGGAL Connect - not that DUGGAL is a blog. Please restore the reference. If you are implying that I have a personal connection to Layla Love - I do not. My interests are to see the article improved. David notMD (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , actually, https://duggal.com/rise-of-the-butterfly-nyc-art-fundraiser-to-confront-human-trafficking-on-view-through-june-15/ is linked from https://duggal.com/Connect, immediately after Duggal Visual Solutions, Duggal InnoLab Debut LUMIPIXELS™ at NYCxDESIGN Week in Times Square, (click on Load More a couple of times) which is obvious self-promotion. This is NOT independent, reliable coverage but a company blog, or PR, if you will. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

an unreliable PR agent?
The subject's accomplishments are wildly exaggerated in promotional materials. For example, https://www.amazon.com/She-God-Evolutionary-Empowerment-Exploration/dp/1947637398/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Layla+Love+She+of+God&qid=1627490733&sr=8-1 says that "Layla Love’s artwork has displayed in prestigious locations worldwide, including [...] Guggenheim Museum, Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). This is simply not true. Love has never exhibited at MoMA or the Guggenheim museum. There is frequent mention of the "MoMa sponsored AiPAD", (which is a dubious claim in itself), but that doesn't make a solo exhibition, or even group show at MoMA. Vexations (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything for Guggenheim or MoMA yet, but I am finding sources for a number of other exhibits. Love is a photographer whose work is being noticed by some very important people. She had pieces in a Catherine Johnson-curated show at the National Arts Club and at the Collective Hardware gallery last year. The Chelsea Arts Club has offered her a show. Tiffany's has her pieces in a show that opens May 20 in Singapore. That same show was a hit in Kyoto, Japan, this year. I'm still looking currently. I also found sourcing for her having art displayed at Alex Grey's Chapel of Sacred Mirrors, which as removed from the article earlier, but the source is their journal which costs $20. She was mentioned in a facebook post by Alex Grey discussing that issue of the journal though, but that can't be used as a reference. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Catherine Johnson is a producer at an advertising company who was on the Photography & Curatorial Committee of The National Arts Club, not a notable curator. Collective Hardware was more an event space than a real art gallery. The Chelsea Arts Club "offered" her an exhibition? That's pretty unlikely, because the club only exhibits work by its members. The Chapel of Sacred Mirrors is closed, and their website doesn't mention her. Vexations (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at, that yes she did have other exhibits in other places, but you're not fond of the venues or curators? Collective Hardware is also where her art hung with all the highly famous artists you mentioned below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Collective Hardware is also where her art hung with all the highly famous artists you mentioned below No, it isn't. Got a source? Vexations (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the show that was going on when her art was there. Obviously the dozens of artists that aren't Warhol or Basquiat that aren't listed. This alludes to it a bit. There's no full listing of artists so I haven't added it to the article, but there it doesn't seem crazy that her art was on the wall during that other exhibition. I'm also not sure what the issue is, as I haven't tried to add any of that to the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Love studied Design and Visual Communications at UC Santa Cruz
This claim has been (re)added by with this diff. The cited source says: "After earning degrees in journalism and visual communication at UC Santa Cruz, and Richmond American International University in London". The problem is that UC Santa Cruz doesn't offer a degree in Design and Visual Communications or journalism, for that matter. Vexations (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also Although she is a college graduate, with a bachelor’s in journalism and visual communication from the University of California at Santa Cruz... so it seems well sourced. Are you looking at their current programs, or programs they may have had in the past? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a distinction is needed between earning a degree at UC Santa Cruz and studying at Richmond, but no confirmation of earning a degree at the latter. "Design and Visual Communications" (capitalized) came from a description of study at Richmond, not UCSC. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is fairly well established that Love's publicists have a tendency to exaggerate. I very much doubt that the sources cited have fact-checked the claims. Richmond says that "While studying for her BA degree in Design and Visual Communications at Richmond, The American International University in London, Layla began, at the age of 21, a five year photo-journalism tour. Hmmm. So, did she complete her degree? If she was 21 when she left, how could she have gotten a degree in a (presumably) four-year program? And how did she manage to get another degree? Did she start university when she was fourteen? Did anyone notice that the text in https://www.richmond.ac.uk/art-loses-its-ego-when-its-paired-with-purpose/ is the same as https://emillionsart.com/artists/contemporary-artists/layla-love/ where the bold-faced lie that "She has participated in over 100 photographic exhibitions with world-renowned artists such as, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Andy Warhol, Robert Mapplethorpe, Pablo Picasso, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and Kara Walker." is repeated verbatim? These are NOT reliable sources. So unless someone can clearly establish, with multiple independent and reliable sources, when Love received which degree from where, the claims should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a lie that she was participated in over 100 exhibitions, where her work was along side those artists'. It seems plenty plausible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hanging your art in places such as the learning center Open Center is not significant for a biography. This photographer appears to showing the same pieces in many places. In the art world, it’s usually not notable to be anywhere except established galleries and museums. I don’t see a solo show in any established gallery. National Arts Club is private and has nightly events which could mean the art stays up as short as one night. Sennagod (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , for one, Kara Walker and Jean-Michel Basquiat aren't photographers. What are they doing in "photographic exhibitions"? Vexations (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm certain it's absolutely unheard of that an exhibition would have art in different mediums. You would never, for instance, see a sculpture in the same exhibition space as a painting. Again, I still don't understand what the issue is? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The point was that neither emillionsart.com nor richmond.ac.uk are reliable because they published the exact same misleading text. It's copy/pasted work, not independent arts journalism. The text itself is a fine example of how PR people twist the truth. Her work has been included in 100 group shows. Some of these shows also included work by well-known artists. But these source make the claim that she participated in 100 shows with world-renowned artists. Well, no, she didn't. She participated in 100 shows, some of which also included work by well-known artists. One of those was The Black & White Show from September 16, 2009 to October 3, 2009 at Collective Hardware, curated by AMP Tracks, Meghan Carleton and Amandine Lesaffre Freidheim. As far as I can tell, there are no reviews of that show. Vexations (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

L.E.A.F. Foundation
In Tom LaVenture, writing for The Garden Island stated that: "Love’s work would aid the L.E.A.F. Foundation to raise money for orphans in West Africa". There are at least two foundations that call themselves Leaf Foundation; the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) Foundation https://www.leaf.ca/about-leaf/leaf-foundation/, and The Leaf Foundation, INC https://leaffoundation.org. That second one wasn't established until four years after the article by LaVenture, so that's probably not what [The Garden Island is referring to, but the first one doesn't work with orphans in West Africa. What exactly is the L.E.A.F. Foundation? Vexations (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's either of those, but unfortunately it may be difficult to find information on a west African NGO that may have been in operation a decade or more ago. It's also tough because we don't know what the acronym stands for or the actual date she was working with them. Found another Leaf Foundation here. Still no idea if it's the right one, but it is operating in West Africa. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not very likely to be that The Leaf Foundation. It doesn't use L.E.A.F. It doesn't appear in archive.org until 2018. If we can't unambiguously identify the organization, and confirm that actual funding was provided rather than promised, the claim should be removed. Vexations (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that deletion. Unlike Rise, I never came across a hint of L.E.A.F. connected to Layla Love other than the LaVenture ref that was in the article when it was created in 2018. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be better to just do that section as one paragraph saying that she sometimes donates the process of her at to unnamed charities and that she started rise of the butterflies rather than naming individual ngos and charities? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would not be an improvement to make vague statements. We should not say that she sometimes promises to donate the proceeds of charitable events to unidentified charitable organizations that may or may not exist and at least one charity event was to raise funds "for an operation which is her only hope" according to Vexations (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD closed with Keep on 31 July
AfD closed on 31 July 2021, with decision Keep. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sept 2021
Copying To : My position is that the Laya Love Collection should not be added as an External link because it is promotional, i.e., selling clothing and other goods. The YouTube link should not be added as a reference because YouTube is not considered a reliable source reference. The philanthropy statement "In 2016, Love, with Gloria Steinem, conceived of Rise of the Butterfly, to provide a sustainable source of funding for grassroots organizations working to fight human trafficking and help women and girls around the world recover from being trafficked." is already verified by three references.

The question of whether the mention of her dystonia merits inclusion is a separate question that can be discussed here before deciding to include it or not. Please do not re-add or delete the disputed content before a consensus can be attempted here. Repeated reversions are considered edit warring, which can lead to a temporary block of editing.

Lastly, I am asking you to state whether or not there is a personal or paid connection to Layla Love, as either/both would need to be addressed on your User page, per WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That about sums up my view as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ignore the refs list below, as that is from earlier discussions. David notMD (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)