Talk:Forever 21/Archives/2020
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Forever 21. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Addition to Downfall Section
I would like to add a sentence that states: After filing for bankruptcy in September, Forever 21 is expected to be sold for $81 million dollars to Authentic Brands Group and Simon and Brookfield mall landlords. [1]
The proposed sale to Authentic Brands/Brookfield/Simon is already noted under the "Bankruptcy" sub-heading of the "History" section. Honestly, most of the "Downfall" section seems better rewritten and merged into the History section. Pokemonprime (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Nguyen, Terry. "Bidding Has Begun on Bankrupted Forever 21". vox.com. Retrieved 2/17/20.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help)
Requesting change to infobox and bankruptcy section
 | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
In the Forever 21 info box, please change "Key People" - remove all Chang's and add Daniel Kulle (CEO) with a citation of <https://wwd.com/business-news/retail/daniel-kull-expand-digital-sustainability-efforts-as-forever-21s-new-ceo-1203509614/>
In Bankruptcy section, please add "On February 19, 2020 Forever 21 had reached a deal to sell all of its assets for $81 million to a consortium of mall operators Simon Property Group and Brookfield Properties, and brand management firm Authentic Brands Group." With a citation of <https://www.adweek.com/retail/authentic-brands-ceo-jamie-salter-on-his-companys-global-ambitions-as-it-buys-forever-21/>
Jane.fosburg (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply 28-FEB-2020
Edit request partially implemented
The CEO was added to the |key people=parameter, replacing the Changs — who despite being replaced there, still retain their position under the|founders=parameter.[a]
The claim regarding the deal with the mall operators was not added, because a similar claim already exists in the article as the third paragraph of the Bankruptcy subheading of the History section.
Regards, Spintendo 03:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Mr. and Mrs. Chang only; the third individual's name listed under key people does not carry over to the founders parameter.
Requesting add of new Header Marketing And Collaborations
| | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. |
Can we please add a new main header "Marketing And Collaborations" and update with the below noteworthy collaborations.
12.207.104.129 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Reply 2-MAR-2020
Edit request declined
- Wikipedia is not a directory of the subject company's brand collaborations. This information is already available on the company's website, a link to which has been provided in the article.
Regards, Spintendo 18:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Request adding of Philanthropy Header
| | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:NOBLECAUSE. |
Can we please add a new header "Philanthropy" and highlight the good that Forever 21 did during the holiday. Please add in "2019 Ugly Sweater Campaign - for each ugly sweater purchased, a $1 was donated to the Girls & Boys Club." with citation of this article <https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/national-ugly-christmas-sweater-day-fans-celebrate-with-horrible-style-1203405000/>
Jane.fosburg (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- The company's philanthropic pursuits are not germane to the article. Regards, Spintendo 19:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Spintendo, in discussing with the requesting editor on IRC, I've given some thought here. I do have some concern that the article suffers from WP:UNDUE given the sheer volume of recent coverage surrounding the bankruptcy. While I think that this doesn't warrant a full section on it's own, I do think it could probably be incorporated into the article elsewhere within scope and to also help meet the WP:UNDUE concerns. Your thoughts? Waggie (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Waggie: Thank you for your question, and it's a fair one. If I were to look at Forever 21's bad press, such as concerns over its employee relations and safety, its copyright controversies, its allegations of cadmium usage in jewelry — then to balance these out, I would say that the perfect additions to the article would be these other views on their employee relations and safety, their copyright controversy, and their alleged use of cadmium in their jewelry.
- The proposed claim, cited by a WWD article mentioning news from many other retailers, doesn't seem to cover any of that — it notes F21's one-time, tax-deductible donation of $25,000 to an organization called the Girls and Boys Club — an organization not previously affected by any of the F21 controversies (except, perhaps, if any of these boys and girls had purchased and worn F21's jewelry). So applying that to UNDUE makes me wonder — does this really meet the spirit and intent of undue? That's also a fair question. Regards, Spintendo 21:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, also a fair question. I suppose I consider WP:PROPORTION to be part of WP:UNDUE, though it's not really - but it's what I was thinking of. Waggie (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Spintendo, in discussing with the requesting editor on IRC, I've given some thought here. I do have some concern that the article suffers from WP:UNDUE given the sheer volume of recent coverage surrounding the bankruptcy. While I think that this doesn't warrant a full section on it's own, I do think it could probably be incorporated into the article elsewhere within scope and to also help meet the WP:UNDUE concerns. Your thoughts? Waggie (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)