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 merge to
The Fold (brand). After extended time for discussion, there is clear consensus that this article should not exist, but an absence of consensus on what to do next. Considering that there is some support for keeping the article, albeit insufficient to overcome this consensus, the solution is to merge the content into the proposed merge/redirect target. In practice, however, there is very little cited content to merge.
BD2412T 01:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Like her brand, there are a lot of passing mentions but no true meaningful coverage. There are also a lot of "what's hot!" lists but otherwise nothing of substance.
Praxidicae (
talk) 17:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Changed !vote to Redirect to
The Fold after that deletion discussion resulted in keep and as the copyvio in the McMaster article has been dealt with.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk) 15:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I will also drop these on her talk page.
Missvain (
talk) 03:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss sources found by User:Missvain
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Natg 19 (
talk) 00:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi, can you explain how the sources I presented above do not show the subject qualifying for general notability guidelines? Thank you!
Missvain (
talk) 03:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth: the Drapers source is about the brand and the interview portion with her is primary, the first Telegraph source is a trivial mention that shouldn't be used to support a claim of notability, the second one at fashion.telegraph is a puff piece about her fitness regime and product preferences, Daily Mail is deprecated and can't be used to support notability, interviews on news programs like BBC Business Live are rarely indications of notability because they are primary sources that don't involve fact-checking, and the Bazaar article is a puff interview in the vein of the second Telegraph piece. Long story short: you've got one workable source, and it's The Evening Standard. The rest of it is not GNG-worthy. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, per my above comment. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Noting here that I've removed the copyvio mentioned in comment #2 and in the process the sole source, so someone should probably add new ones if the article is (to be) kept.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk) 10:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Missvain has proved that sources
WP:NEXIST. Hopefully someone will put them in the article.
Wm335td (
talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Wm335td, did you read any of the sources? Or my comment above which demonstrates that only one of the sources is suitable for supporting a claim of notability? ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 02:05, 2 February 2020 (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.