Talk:Capri Holdings

Proposed merge with Michael Kors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to oppose merge, recommendation was given to focus the article on the company.

---

The brand and the person are essentially indistinguishable, as Kors markets stuff under his own name. Both can be amply covered in a single article, Michael Kors. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. I believe it warrants its own page. It has a symbol on NASDAQ: [1], and several sources indicating notability, separate from designer: [2], what they did with counterfeits: [3], new store in London: [4], popularity among teens: [5], competitors: [6], [7], popularity: [8] Tinton5 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge Michael Kors is an internationally recognized media personality with many media appearances and a great deal of charity work under his designer belt. He is distinguished from his brand. If his brand was or has been sold he would continue to exist as a distinct notable entity.. Is the case closed?Masterknighted (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope it is. Thanks for your input. They are two totally different entities it's not even funny, now that I really realize it. So many people (mostly young women) on the street, in the store, at school, work….anywhere, I see they have MK purses. I know that's not the best reason to provide, but.. Let's see if anyone else wants to chime in, and gain more discussion. This is a very low traffic article. Tinton5 (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per Tinton5, but without expected expansion this article would probably deserve to be merged. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - per above plus a brand with 500/2000 shops must be notable. DexDor ^(talk) 05:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per Tinton5, Masterknighted, and agree with Gareth E Kegg that expansion is needed. Edwardx (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, details are listed in the separate section. Verbal.noun (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, but this article is in need of an expansion. And, yes, per Tinton5 and Gareth E Kegg. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment neither supporting nor opposing merge; if the (brand) article does not get expanded fairly soon, indicating notability separate from the man, i would fully support the merge, as at this point the thing is such a stub it should be merged away. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. A public company is not the founder/main shareholder even if they share a name, he could sell out and have nothing to do with the company that carry his names (as many others did). I would think the article should be about the company (Michael Kors Holdings Limited) and not the brand. --DelftUser (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion

Hello all, the current article about the person has a significant share describing the activities of the entity and I suggest moving some of this content to the article about the company. The public company (Michael Kors Holdings Limited) has board of directors, management, employees and all the other major attributes of the NASDAQ listed enterprise and deserves an independent article with its own content. For instance, according the 10_K of the Michael Kors Holdings Limited, the CEO is John D. Idol and Mr Michael Kors is the Honorary Chairman, Chief Creative Officer and Director. The company CFO is Joseph B. Parsons, etc.

The article about Mr Michael Kors should include his biography and reasons for notability. News publications and annual filings from, for instance, google news aggregator, information on NASDAQ website and SEC filings, could help to expand both articles. Verbal.noun (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree to include these. Since this page is expanded and continuing expansion, we should start to wrap up the merge proposal. Tinton5 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Headquarters

There legal structure is complex, but their SEC filings cite their primary legal HQ as the British Virgin Islands, principal location of execs as London, and operational base as the U.S. Britishfinance (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)