Talk:Vineyard Vines#Target and COVID-19 updates

The article is written like a PR bit (most of the language seems to come from the website) but it's definitely becoming a fairly major independent clothing label, probably meets notability standards. It's pretty regional though, you're not going to see it outside the East Coast or South. But, especially in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, it's one of the most commonly scene high-end casualwear brands. There are about fifteen stores total from Florida to Massachusetts. Article needs a rewrite so it sounds less like advertising and uses news sources, but overall I think it meets notability standards. 173.73.89.48 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted in the past due to promotional content. I have tagged some unsourced sections as needing citations. if no references are added in one week I will remove them. If sources are found in the future any deleted content can be added back.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Nicole at Vineyard Vines|U1-employer=Vineyard Vines}}

On behalf of my employer Vineyard Vines, I'd like to suggest an update to this Wikipedia article. Currently, the "Stores" section says, "The company has expanded to more than 59 stores as well as 15 outlet locations across the U.S. states." Additionally, the infobox says, "70 Stores, 19 Outlets, 97 Retailers".

However, this is outdated. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/31/vineyard-vines-target-how-to-find-items/1280715001/ This USA Today article from 2019] says, "The company has more than 100 freestanding stores, and its merchandise is also sold in over 600 specialty and department stores." Can someone please update the page accordingly?

User:Crystallizedcarbon, I see you've started a discussion above and worked on the article before, if you're interested in reviewing this request. Thanks! Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

:I updated the information. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Crystallizedcarbon, I posted a note to you on my talk page and meant to do so here. Thanks again for your previous assistance! I'd like to suggest mention of another milestone, this time related to revenue. Currently, the "Expansion" section has a revenue statement about the mid-2000s, then says, "In 2015, the company inaugurated a new headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut."

I propose adding the following sentence in between these two as a revenue milestone for the mid-2010s:

• "In 2015, Racked said Vineyard Vines earned $308 million for the most recent fiscal year and had a 43 percent revenue growth in 2014.{{cite news |last1=Lieber |first1=Chavie |title=Vineyard Vines and the Enduring Power of Prep |url=https://www.racked.com/2015/3/5/8148405/vineyard-vines |work=Racked |publisher=Vox Media |date=March 5, 2015 |accessdate=November 9, 2020}}{{cite news |last1=Chapin |first1=Adele |title=Vineyard Vines Could Be Worth as Much as $1 Billion |url=https://www.racked.com/2016/5/18/11703938/vineyard-vines-1-billion-valuation |accessdate=November 9, 2020 |work=Racked |date=May 18, 2016}}"

{{Reflist-talk}}

I'll let editors decide if this is worth including as a general milestone. Crystallizedcarbon, I see you've gone back and forth with another editor over the "Legal Matters" section. The series of edits seems to be by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OdinNeith someone whose only edits are adding negative text about the company]. In doing so, from what I understand, they may have introduced copyright violations and added :Category:Discrimination and :Category:Lawsuits. I'll also ask, are Legal Newsline and ClassAction.org reliable journalistic sources? I wasn't sure based on my initial reading of guidelines. Thanks, Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

:{{re|Nicole at Vineyard Vines}} Is there anything more current? Including their most recent figures if they have received coverage by reliable sources could make sense. As far as the Legal Matters section, In my opinion is undue, but I did not want to be dragged into an edit war I will consult with an experienced admin on how to best address it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Crystallizedcarbon}} Thanks for replying. I've struggled to find very recent revenue figures in news sources, but [https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2018/04/10/how-vineyard-vines-built-a-giant-brand-without-raising-a-penny-of-equity/?sh=45df393a6c95 this one] (which is already used as a citation) says "the company now has 95 stores, and sales of its colorful, whale-logoed shirts and neckties hit $476 million in 2016". Hopefully this helps, at least I can find a more recent number. Also, thanks for reaching out to User:Ritchie333 for feedback re: Legal Matters. I look forward to seeing this issue resolved. Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

:::Hello {{re|Nicole at Vineyard Vines}} I have added the information as it is sourced and relevant. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again! I'd like to suggest a couple additional updates to the article's History section. More specifically, I propose adding mention of the company's partnership with Target Corporation in 2019 and the temporary store closures because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Here are sources and text for consideration:

• In 2019, Target Corporation offered a 300-product limited edition Vineyard Vines collection in stores and online.{{cite news |last1=Tyko |first1=Kelly |title=Target's Vineyard Vines: It's not impossible to find items. Here's how and where to save |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/31/vineyard-vines-target-how-to-find-items/1280715001/ |access-date=December 1, 2020 |work=USA Today |date=May 31, 2019}}{{cite journal |last1=Van Abbema |first1=Alex |title=Target teams with preppy fashion label Vineyard Vines |journal=Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal |date=February 28, 2019 |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2019/02/28/target-teams-with-preppy-fashion-label-vineyard.html |access-date=December 1, 2020}}
• All Vineyard Vines stores were temporarily closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.{{cite news |last1=Schott |first1=Paul |title=Stamford-based Vineyard Vines temporarily closes all stores due to coronavirus |url=https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/Stamford-based-Vineyard-Vines-temporarily-closes-15134472.php |access-date=December 1, 2020 |work=Stamford Advocate |date=March 16, 2020}}

{{reflist-talk}}

User:Crystallizedcarbon, Are you available to review this request as well? Thanks! Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

: Hello {{re|Nicole at Vineyard Vines}} I am sorry to say that I don't think that either one of those facts are relevant enough to merit inclusion at this time. The first one seems a bit promotional to me. I am neutral on the second one. Has either received coverage by multiple reliable sources at national level? Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

:: {{reply to|Crystallizedcarbon}} In addition to the aforementioned articles, the Target collection has been discussed by [https://www.businessinsider.com/target-vineyard-vines-collaboration-sold-out-2019-5 Business Insider], [https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/18/cnn-underscored/target-vineyard-vines-release/index.html CNN], [https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/targets-vineyard-vines-collection-selling-out-angering-customers Fox Business], [https://www.glamour.com/gallery/vineyard-vines-target-collection Glamour], [https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/fashion-trends/g27285129/target-vineyard-vines-collaboration-shop/ Town and Country], [https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/5/17/18627056/target-fashion-collaborations-vineyard-vines Vox], [https://www.wmagazine.com/story/vineyard-vines-target-release-sold-out-twitter-reaction/ W magazine], [https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/target-to-partner-with-vineyard-vines-1203059904/ Women's Wear Daily], etc. The temporary closures due to COVID-19 have received less detailed coverage, but [https://www.businessinsider.com/13-retailers-announce-temporarily-store-closures-to-fight-coronavirus-2020-3#crate-and-barrel-6 Business Insider], [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/15/these-retailers-are-closing-stores-to-slow-coronavirus-outbreak.html CNBC], and [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/style/coronavirus-clothing-beauty-stores-closed.html The New York Times] should help. [https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/03/a-list-of-stores-that-temporarily-have-closed-or-cut-hours-because-of-coronavirus.html NJ.com], the [https://www.ajc.com/news/here-list-retail-chains-that-have-closed-stores-altered-hours/yOvUJfkmMG6oxUMdSbVXEL/ Atlanta Journal-Constitution] (April), and [https://wwd.com/business-news/retail/store-closure-list-coronavirus-march-1203540360/ Women's Wear Daily] also confirm. I hope this helps, Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

::: Thank you {{re|Nicole at Vineyard Vines}} That is clearly enough to merit inclusion. I went ahead and added it to the article. I also expanded the first point to include the criticism for how quickly it was sold out. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

:::: {{Reply to|Crystallizedcarbon}} Thanks so much for your help. I see one editor keeps adding back the Legal Matters section you've removed before, and the categories "Discrimination" and "Lawsuits" still appear at the bottom of the page. Will you please consider removing from the article again? Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

::::: Hello {{re|Nicole at Vineyard Vines}} I removed the categories. For the section I agree it does not belong, but I have gotten no answer from the admin and I do not want to engage on an edit war over it. If no other editors get involved and if there is no further coverage in a couple of months and no arguments are presented to justify keeping it I would remove it by the end of march. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose adding mention of the company's approximately $1 billion valuation in 2016, per many sources:

• [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vineyardvines-m-a/vineyard-vines-explores-stake-sale-sources-idUSKCN0Y722K Reuters]: "Vineyard Vines, a U.S preppy clothing and accessory retailer, is working with investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc GS.N to sell a minority stake that could value the company at as much as $1 billion, people familiar with the matter said on Monday."
• [https://www.racked.com/2016/5/18/11703938/vineyard-vines-1-billion-valuation Racked]: "Vineyard Vines – the prep-tastic retailer with the pink whale logo — could soon be valued at as much as $1 billion, according to a report from Reuters. Sources tell Reuters that Vineyard Vines is working with investment bank Goldman Sachs in order to sell a minority stake to investors, and that process could result in a billion-dollar valuation."
• [https://wwd.com/menswear-news/mens-sportswear/vineyard-vines-grand-central-terminal-store-shep-murray-ian-murray-investor-10470123/ Women's Wear Daily]: "Although a Reuters report put the valuation of the company at $1 billion"
• [https://www.fastcompany.com/4017879/as-ralph-lauren-and-tommy-hilfiger-face-shrinking-revenues-vineyard-vines-expands-nationwide Fast Company]: "In 2015, the brand brought in $308 million in revenue and Goldman Sachs recently valued the company at as much as $1 billion."
• [https://www.businessinsider.com/brothers-who-founded-vineyard-vines-reveal-why-they-quit-their-jobs-2016-9 Business Insider]: "...share what it was like quitting their corporate jobs to sell ties on the beach and cofound Vineyard Vines, a company worth nearly $1 billion"
• [https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2017/08/06/vineyard-vines/ Boston Magazine]: "... turned the brand into a billion-dollar empire" + "in 2016, Reuters estimated the company's value at nearly a billion dollars"
• [https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2018/04/10/how-vineyard-vines-built-a-giant-brand-without-raising-a-penny-of-equity/?sh=58c5f2106c95 Forbes]: "Despite the fall of retail and the rise of casual wear, Vineyard Vines has quietly built a near-billion-dollar brand"

{{Reply to|Crystallizedcarbon}} Might you be willing to update the article again using whichever sources you think are best? Thanks again for your continued help. Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

:Hello {{re|Nicole at Vineyard Vines}} The right place for making edit requests is the article's talk page. I have copied above your request from your talk page.

:I went ahead and added the information. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again to User:Crystallizedcarbon for assisting with the above request. I wanted to share a couple helpful sources with you and other editors. [https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2017/08/06/vineyard-vines/ Boston magazine] confirms the company is privately owned, if a citation is helpful for "Private" in the infobox. This article also confirms that Vineyard Vines surpassed the $1 million mark in sales within three years and had 100 stores by 2017. The article currently mentions 100+ stores, but perhaps the 2017 "timestamp" would be helpful? Additionally, [https://hbr.org/2018/06/how-vineyard-vines-uses-analytics-to-win-over-customers here's a helpful source] about analytics, published by Harvard Business Review. Perhaps this is helpful as a source or external link?

Finally, I want to ask, Crystallizedcarbon, would you be opposed to me posting on an admin noticeboard regarding the legal issues content? I appreciate your prior work to remove this problematic content, and understand you may be willing to remove the text again in March, but I'm hoping some additional eyes here will mean removal sooner than later. Thanks again for feedback and your continued help. Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

:No problem {{re|Nicole at Vineyard Vines}} Please feel free to do so. You should be cautious though, since you have a declared COI that may not help the case for removal. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Reply to|Crystallizedcarbon}}

Is this the section where we should debate the removal of the public factual referenced Company relevant info in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If I do not hear back I will revert the fact based, relevant, cited articles and information about this topic. It is difficult to not view this as a form of censorship, which is why I now take issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

:You could continue to just speculate about the motives of other editors, cry censorship, and edit war to force your preferred version, but that will not result in the outcome you want and will more than likely result in your account being blocked. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to follow which make the project possible at all, and it's based on good faith collaboration to find consensus. Better would be for you to present arguments, grounded in citations to reliable sources, to include the material, taking into account the objections of others. Whereas you seem to only be on Wikipedia for this article, Crystallizedcarbon has tens of thousands of edits to many, many articles. If anyone is editing this article for the wrong reasons, I would not suspect it's them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

::{{re|OdinNeith}} Yes, this would be a good place to discuss your proposed changes. Our objective is to create encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. Not all verifiable events about a subject are suitable for inclusion in its encyclopedic article. Adding, for example, all the suits filed against each company (regardless of the result or amount of in-depth coverage) would lead to over-detailed articles that would look like a diary. The lasting notability of the event should be taken into account to decide if it merits inclusion. In my opinion, the WP:ROUTINE coverage for the price suit does not give any indication of notability, the sources for the discrimination suit are better, but are only local ones. Is there coverage by any nationwide newssource? has anything being published since? Given the posible penal implications, If there is no better coverage, I would wait for the eventual publication of a guilty verdict before inclusion. Please explain why you think this particular suits merit inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

{{Reply to|Crystallizedcarbon}}

We should have an admin step in. Appears like clear suppression of factual information. Either provide proof that the host of references including articles, newspaper publications, legal documents and public proceedings are incorrect. Or cease the edit war and censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 18 March 2021 (UTC)

:See WP:SUSPECT, we should not include accusations of crime in a wp:blp. These are only allegations, and we lose nothing by waiting for an outcome. Also wp:undue might come into it, one line "And is currently subject to a number of lawsuits" might be OKish (but would have to be removed if they win, which is kind of the point, if they win we have to remove all of this anyway). This is the problem, win or lose this would need to be reworked, so we wait until we can write an encyclopedic entry on the legal issues. Also there may be wp:pov issues, why was this also not added https://www.distractify.com/p/vineyard-vines-lawsuit-real-housewives, its a legal dispute involving them, one who's outcome we know? It needs work.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

::Saw this posted on WP:ANI and my immediate thoughts match Slatersteven. Filed lawsuits that don't draw significant coverage in major sources shouldn't be mentioned, and both of these suits seem to fall in that category. The class action suit sources in particular are scraping the barrel - one looks more like a press release than anything else.

::

::I'm also curious about the connection between OdinNeith and these lawsuits. There's a strong feel of WP:COI here that's not being declared. Ravensfire (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

We definitely need to elevate to a proper admin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_%26_Fitch There are thousands of like examples. Debate, discuss vs take down. Be a wiki not a factual data suppression — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

:{{u|OdinNeith}}, substantial difference between Abercrombie & Fitch and what you're trying to add. It's been pointed out previously - those are settled cases. You're adding ones that aren't and in the class action case, your sources are utter junk - press releases basically. Not acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Controversies - equivalent wiki content & pages in the same industry...

Good point though, change legal issues to controversies to be consistent. Good point!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_Inc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_21

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy%27s

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lululemon_Athletica

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Outfitters

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_(retailer)

List goes on.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)