Talk:Lucy Activewear

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucy Activewear article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Start

A much better start! Don't forget to add references; they will help establish notability and are critical for writing a Wikipedia-worthy article. I did a quick Google search and found some good 3rd party references; try using those to keep a neutral point of view. Good luck! Vicenarian (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always curious about these issues, having added a lot to the Dendreon page. An encyclopedia is not the yellow pages or the Thomas Directory or a public notice venue. It is hard to know where this stub will go but from looking at Alpine Electronics page, the immediate cue is puffery-this is a legal term for untestable claims ( too empty to be shown to be false ). Boasts, comparisons to nothing ( " costs less [ than what????]" ), etc are good cues. Unless their marketing plan creates a notable event, simply hyping a product is IMO not notable. Even "balance" doesn't accomplish anything if the events aren't of an "encyclopedic" nature ( whatever that means is up to Wiki but you can ask if you would find it in a print encyclopedia ) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline here is WP:CORP. As long as the article for a company is written in encyclopedic tone and cites sufficient third-party, verifiable sources, it should qualify under said guideline. And remember, it's potential we're looking for. Vicenarian (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]