Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakley (fashion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep. I realize five hours is short for a VfD discussion, but the subject's notability has been established, the nomination was withdrawn, and there is clear consensus. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:51, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
This small eyeware copany does not seem in any way encyclopedic. The only link is to the companies own site. Google hits seem solely for sales outlets. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Delete. DES 18:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely Strong Keep Oakley is a "small company"?! They're pretty much a household word (in the US at least) and probably the most famous sunglass company in the world. Lots of their own stores, and strong presence in chains like Sunglass Hut, etc. 1,730,000 Google hits (yes, that's 1.7 MILLION) for Oakley +sunglasses! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable company and fashion trend-setter. Wouldn't Google hits seem solely for sales outlets, when there are 1.7 million hits as Starblind says, imply that this company has a rather large volume of sales? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. NYSE listed company, symbol OO.[1] $1 billion market cap, annual revenues in the $125-150 million range. This is what we are calling a "small eyeware company"? Maybe move to Oakley, Inc.. --Tabor 20:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. NYSE listed company. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-known global company. Mindmatrix 21:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a stub, but a good one. And Oakley is certainly notable and encyclopedic. A Man In Black 22:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Publicly listed company notable for sunglasses. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please this does not belong here on vfd Yuckfoo 23:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw while I am not fully convinced of the encyclopedic nature of this company, it seems that I didn't do my research as well as I should have. I encountered this entry while fixing accessory, and noted a comment on the discussion page questioning its encyclopedic status. My inital research seemed to me to support that doubt. The emerging consensus seems clear, and I hereby withdraw my nomination. I do think that additional materiel to make clear just why this company is encyclopedic should be added to the article. DES 23:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.