Talk:Loving More

not an article

This barely qualifies as a stub. A few quick points.

• ineptly written; reads like a 12-year-old's class project, with worse English than I'd expect out of Google Translate. I mean, "started as a News Letter"?? and I'm pretty sure that "InteNet resource center" should be "IntiNet Resource Center (IRC)" fixed
• corporate boilerplate propaganda, generally word-for-word from the sources without quotation marks.
• the primary source for "objective" info is... the organization's site. Three more glancing mentions don't add much to credibility.
• LM's site is hardly credible; under Latest Articles, the fourth one down is "Have a Joyful and Polyamorous New Year 2014!"
• the "history" supplied and cited leaves all sorts of gaps, such as how much work Nearing's partners Barry and Alan put into creating, financing, and promoting PEP and the newsletter, or how PEP went from staunchly polyfidelitous to polyamorous.
• logical leaps exist, like how LM is "concerned with polyamory awareness for the polyamory community." Seems like those are the very people who'd already be aware
• and there's no "Rob Rimmer": he liked to be addressed as "Bob" (and he DOES have a WP entry). fixed

Cleanup is long overdue, and I apologize for my sloth.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

To expand on one of the above points: I'm not comfortable with the subject of an article being taken as a main source of information. More significant than the matter of credibility is that of notability: if nobody's writing about the subject, then maybe the subject doesn't deserve an article.

So when the input provided by the subject is especially weak, the quality of the witness erodes much further. In this instance, LoveMore.com has had very few updates since 2014, those mostly to promote its income-creating conferences.

More troubling is their Financial Information page. The WP article says the org wants to "eventually become" a 501(c)(3). The FI page says this was achieved, apparently by 2010, from which they post the 990-EZ filing. I may try a rewrite to reflect this.

The FI page was clearly intended to post the 990 from every year. This ends with the 2013 entry. They do offer a link to Guidestar.org for the complete filings… which gets a 404. After some digging, I did find Loving More (a.k.a. Peppublishing), but the actual info they have is

Form(s) 990 for 2016, 2016 and 2014.

so on the surface it appears the organization ceased to exist after 2016 — or that it's failing at elementary public relations. Either way, to have WP presenting LM as anything more than a failing organization (until proven otherwise) seems to run afoul of WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Let me also mention the URL oddities. I mistyped lovingmore.com and found it's camped by some unrelated owner, lovingmore.org by yet another, and lovemore.org by a third. (Really, as NONE has any actual content, and likely never has, LM could probably get fast-tracked by ICANN.) The WP article refers always to lovemore.com, but if you go there you'll be rerouted to lovingmorenonprofit.org which begs a couple of questions. (FWIW: lovingmorenonprofit.org routes you there, so they did at one point learn one lesson.)

My overall point is that while an article subject is poorly placed to comment upon itself, even less should W'pedia lean on something so flimsy.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Only now do I notice that the original Loving More website is given short shrift. Over in More Than Two, the claim (which I intend to remove) is made that Frank Veaux launched his site in 1998 as "one of the first web resources about polyamory" when I'm certain LM had a thriving forum by then. There was no social media back then, and nonmonogamy was pretty much ignored in the mainstream. Maybe it's mentioned in some book, perhaps Anapol.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)