Talk:6126 (clothing line)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Umm... i've never updated a wikipedia page before but I think this one could do alot better! The first thing i think is pherhaps a section with what the media/fashion desgigners/peers etc have said about the brand.
Merge discussion[edit]
I hereby propose the merger the basic contents of this article into the Lindsay Lohan page, and the rest deleted. This is a small business only notable by a celebrity founder and only worthy of inclusion in said celebrity's main page. This topic severely lacks encyclopedic content and reads like advertising and marketing material. The source history has been all self published, press releases, or fashion preview marketing. There is that lawsuit source which is sourced from metrolyrics.com, a music lyric site that posts celebrity gossip as "news" in articles apparently aimed at 100 words or less.
I honestly suspect the original creator of the page is a publicist or working for one and this is nothing but self promotion and advertisement. If every business advertised like this on Wikipedia it would be more the yellow pages than the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully343 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
no i think it should be kept, its notable enough and isnt hurting anyone, it provides extra information which cannot be inluded in the Lindsay Lohan article, it is similar to the Stuff by Hilary Duff atricle which is still there, it has used references i think it should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.38.34 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No keep it.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Is 6126 defunct?[edit]
I can't find any contemporary reference to 6126, and the link on this page to the 6126 website now points to the co-creators (not Lindsay's) Linkedin page, which lists 6126 as a previous workplace. This strongly suggests that 6126 is no longer a going concern, although I can't find anything definitive that states this.
If 6126 is defunct, then perhaps the previous proposal above (that the basics of this page should be folded into the Lindsay Lohan page) should be revisited.Wee Charlie (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)