Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polly McMaster


 * 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. BD2412 T 01:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Polly McMaster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete . Bio lifted from this site, seemingly copyvio. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There's lots of detailed coverage such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss sources found by User:Missvain
 * Keep She passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:
 * "Entrepreneurs: Suits you, madam... how to bring stylish work outfits to the high-flyers of London" from the Evening Standard
 * "Welcome to The Fold's first physical store" from Drapers
 * "From fintech to skincare: Meet Britain's brightest female business leaders under 35" from The Telegraph
 * "My lightbulb moment: Designer Polly McMaster reveals how working in finance made her realise there was a lack of smart clothing options for women" from the Daily Mail (Yes, I know we don't always use the Daily Mail but hey, at least she got good press...)
 * ""Polly McMaster: The Complete Woman" from The Telegraph
 * BBC Business News Live - The Inside Track with Polly McMaster, The Fold Founder from BBC Business Live
 * "Work It Out: Polly McMaster" from Harper's Bazaar
 * I will also drop these on her talk page. Missvain (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, per my above comment. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Missvain has proved that sources WP:NEXIST. Hopefully someone will put them in the article. Wm335td (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to The Fold (brand) perhaps under a new section. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.