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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
None of these should be included, they're quite nakedly promotional content and a couple are just slop aggregators. Is a single book being a "bestseller" for a single week notable? No, not really. 69.157.0.123 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this subject really noteworthy? The article barely has anything about Pendleton or her accomplishments beyond the fact that she owns a small company that she runs as a cooperative and how she released a book that itself isn't particularly noteworthy. I'm going to be honest, this feels like a promotional article for someone who hasn't done much beyond going viral once on TikTok, and the article really feels like it's leaning on the Fortune piece for relevance.
I also don't want to get into OR, but the more I read on this person, the more I am suspicious about their integrity in how they describe themselves and their circumstances, which is another red flag for the noteworthiness of the subject. 69.157.0.123 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding templates for noteworthiness and promotional material, the only thing that seems to be actually noteworthy is her previous relationship with Drew Bernstein, which by itself isn't noteworthy. 69.157.0.123 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not seem relevant or necessary. It does not appear to have anything notable besides being a small business owner in California. Additionally, this article appears to be promotional towards the small business. I am wondering if this article is really needed based on the noteworthiness and heavy promotional content. MEgstad (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Put up my own flag because no, it does not remotely meet notability guidelines. It's bizarre for an established user to try saying a subject meets notability guidelines with absolutely no material establishing a semblance of noteworthiness, beyond sponsored content and outdated promotions of her business, which clearly is not structured as a cooperative anymore and by Pendleton's own admission, outsources manufacturing to China. If it comes down to it, I will add corroborating information about Pendleton's own business structure just to reinforce the point that this subject is not notable.
This is clearly promotional content. The Article spends more time discussing Tunnel Vision Clothing than Madeline Pendleton. The article requires; A: Major Edits to insure neutrality B: Deletion. It's clearly promoting Pendleton's business. It barely mentions what the majority people know her for, her TikTok account, Instead it spends most of the article discussing her business. SerialDesignationN17 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not clear to me how why she's notable in the first place, or why the person who removed the deletion flag is adding a Publishers Weekly advertisement for her book. If we are that strained for citations already, it's obvious that the subject isn't noteworthy to begin with. If she were notable as a fashion designer it would be one thing, but instead the article draws on relatively unknown e-zines and promotional content. Someone (bless them) tried adding a controversy section, but it's unsourced and irrelevant to the article. Looks like the article is just going to be covered in a template for months on end before anything happens, because she's not notable for an article but likely has enough fans to gum up the process for removing what's essentially an advertisement on Wikipedia. ~2025-32573-15 (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The removing from deleting tags is looking like she has potential fans or herself coming to stop the deletion of article. I'm sure how we can move forward if constant deletions are halted by fans swarming in. MEgstad (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}