Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lulu Lemon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lulu Lemon, now redirected to Lululemon

No opinion. Was incorrectly tagged with PROD twice CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Why is it incorrect? This is a blatant ad for a non-notable company. Grandmasterka 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're only supposed to add a {{prod}} tag one time. If someone removes it, you're supposed to take it to an AfD if you still believe it deserves deletion, instead of just getting into a tag revert war. --Aaron 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The only thing I think is incorrect is that it should have went straight here in the first place. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 02:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant advertisement. Royal Blue T/C 02:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a brilliant piece of historical data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I am the one who reinstated the prod. I apologize for that. TheRingess 02:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising; can't find evidence that it meets WP:CORP regardless. --Kinu t/c 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. Having the correct name of the company helps. Definitely seems to meet WP:CORP now. Thanks to ERCheck for the rewrite and references. --Kinu t/c 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Grandmasterka. Bobby1011 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - the prod tag was removed by a vandal with a false edit summary "reverting vandalism." The deletion was not actually being contested - it was pure and simple vandalism. FCYTravis 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. If the Ringess is for it, I'm against it, on principle —Preceding unsigned comment added by WonofHearts (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as advert. --Cymsdale 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
AbstainI'm removing my delete recommendation after the revisions made. --Cymsdale 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, renamed 'lululemon' and rewritten. This is actually a very notable brand at the yoga end of the athleticwear market, as per this Google News search. I will do the rewrite myself, later. - squibix(talk) 11:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per squibix's news results and 100k on a regular google search. I removed the advertising -- Astrokey44|talk 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per squibix. NickelShoe 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has been recently featured in BusinessWeek (I added the reference to the article). Multiple Ghits, seems to be very popular, including being auctioned on e-bay. I've moved it to Lululemon. (The official company name is "lululemon athletica"). —ERcheck @ 17:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I've removed additional "advertising"; included more information about the company, growth, equity, etc. In December 2005, U.S. private equity firm invested $225 million - looks like company value is over US$600 million; with retail outlets in Canada, Japan, U.S. as well as Canada. Number of outside articles, which I've added a small selection to the article. Seems to meet WP:CORP (see #1). —ERcheck @ 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. -- Krash (Talk) 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:CORP. Well done to ERCheck for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on the rewrite, though it needs a "miscapitalized per article naming conventions" header, if anyone can remember how to do that. -Colin Kimbrell 17:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. The template is {{Lowercase}} —ERcheck @ 01:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, that's the ticket. Thanks. -Colin Kimbrell 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As advertising. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on the rewrite. *drew 08:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's another (smaller) stub on the same subject at Lululemon Athletica. If this is kept, the two should be merged (there is mergable content). If this is deleted, that probably should be as well. In the event of a merge, I'd probably lean toward trucking most of the content from this article over to that one, since the smaller article is filed under the company's proper name. -Colin Kimbrell 15:57, 2 March 2006 (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.