This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
The article gives the current name of the child (now an adult) at the center of this dispute. I don't see any historic or encyclopedic value in that. The article is about the act named for her mother and its history. What does it add when we give the current name of the adult child? I see no value in it other than making it easier for people to track her down. I'm a proponent of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but I think there is a valid counter-argument in this case. Dcs002 (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article linked at note 3; it is obvious that the daughter is not hiding from but rather is seeking publicity.SHJohnson (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added slightly more detail to some of the sentences, to make a bit more even-handed. That includes making it clearer that the mother and daughter gave an interview to L.A. Weekly in 2009 and the daughter is/was openly involved in a musical career with that name. Hope that helps with the above. This article really got thrashed a few years ago; there are probably some things worth recovering in there, if they're sourced property. --Closeapple (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
