Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugg Australia

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UGG Australia

UGG Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary and POV content fork and WP:COATRACK article full of OR. I tried redirecting it to Deckers Outdoor Corporation, but was reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I've "moved" the article to UGG Australia since this is the correct expression of the brand corporate name. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UGG brand boots, for the most recent year (2008) I've been able to find figures on, sells US$689 million a year.[1] That's an increase from US$14.5 million in 1995.[2] And I found those figures with a single Google search, in less time than it takes to type this. For such a popular brand, I think it rates its own article, particularly since the parent company, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, has a name that doesn't even resemble the name of the brand.
That's an increase of 4,652% in 13 years.
Notable? Very.
General Motors has separate articles for its Chevrolet and GMC lines. Chrysler Corporation has separate articles for its Jeep and Dodge lines. Of course feel free to nominate this article for AfD if you choose, but I am confident that it will be an enormous waste of time for everyone, that would be better spent improving articles rather than trying to delete them. Kindly read the guidelines for article deletion,[3] if you think it's got WP:NOR and WP:COATRACK problems, edit the article rather than trying to delete it. I strongly suspect that the people trying to merge/delete it have WP:COI or WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues of their own. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter how many people know something. Don't mistake content forks for seperate articles. This can easily be included in the parent article for now --neon white talk 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neon, there's one sentence in WP:PRODUCT that you neglected to mention: "If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article." I would have to say that at US$689 million a year, 4,652% growth in 13 years, with celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker, Oprah Winfrey, Jessica Simpson and Kate Hudson wearing them, this is an extremely notable brand. Not as notable as Gucci or Jimmy Choo, but if you're Jimmy Choo, objects in your rear view mirror may be closer than they appear. Also I will add emphasis to one word in the segment you did quote: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company ..." The magic word "generally" indicates that there are exceptions. This is one of the exceptions: a product brand that is eminently notable on its own merits. Thanks for mentioning WP:PRODUCT. It seals the deal. This article should stay. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Celebrities" and a large profit margin doesn't make something notable. You're getting dangerously close to spam now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4,652% growth in 13 years makes something notable. If you grew that much, you'd be 285 feet tall. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being 285ft tall would be a pain in the arse, but wouldn't make me notable unless it was noted by independent, reliable sources. ;) That's the principle of notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now why didn't I think of that?[4] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented below, but WP:PRODUCT is a very limited principle. It is not a reflection of Wikipedia practice as it applies to brands overall. Products and services, maybe, but certainly not brands of fashion, cookies, automobiles, fast food, computer software, or most anything else. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Ugg or ugg boots is such a popular term worldwide, and is even used to describe similar products from other brands (in the same way as Coke, for example). Redirecting or merging into Deckers Outdoor Corporation is likely to confuse wikipedians who just looked up Ugg boots or Ugg, and whilst I can understand User:Neon white's point, every case is different and User:Phoenix and Winslow has given several examples where the point Neon white cited has been contradicted. Even Big Mac and Quarter pounder have their own articles... and rightly so! :) IainUK talk 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugg boots has its own article. WP:OTHERCRAP is an argument to avoid at AfD. Have you read the article? It's a WP:COATRACK full of some shite about some slightly related trademark dispute that may just about be notable. It contains next to no content on the term or the boots and is a borderline speedy candidate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugg boots, if you'd care to look at the article's Talk page, is all about the generic term "ugg boots" rather than the brand "UGG." Australian editors there have been vigorously trying to evict a lot of material about the company and the brand. Please join me there, and try to convince them that there's plenty of room in that article to talk about the brand, and its trademark and counterfeiting woes. But that's a separate article about a separate, but closely related topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems that, to a certain extent, the whole controversy has spilled over from there and this pile of POV OR is what we're left with as this article has become a dumping ground for the stuff (that I have no opinion on, FWiW) that's been evicted from the other article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The trademark controversy and counterfeit sections exist in all 3 articles. It should be determined if they apply to the company or the product and then only exist in that article. DCEdwards1966 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — in case that isn't clear from my earlier comments. Here we have several trademark disputes. World War II consisted of several battles as well. Does Wikipedia limit any comments about the war to the article about the United States of America? No, of course not. Every nation that participated in these battles has some mention of it in their articles: both the allies and the enemies of the U.S. It should be the same with these trademark disputes. Yes, World War II was a lot bigger and nastier and more expensive and bloody than this, therefore more notable. But it has spawned literally thousands of WP articles. There are over 1,000 articles on just the warships of the U.S., British and Australian navies that fought in that war — from USS Borie (an article I'm particularly proud of) to HMAS Australia (one of my personal favorites). I don't want thousands of articles about the Ugg boots trademark controversy. I only want four: Ugg boots, Uggs-N-Rugs, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, and UGG Australia. (And the sales increase of 4,652% in 13 years is pretty noteworthy on its own merits, so there's that.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • agree theres the potential for all four but not sure theres enough difference between the last two to yet warrant it. I believe that a redirect to the parent company is a positive education for those interested in the Brand. Gnangarra 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - this seems to be a close case. But I am an inclusionist, and I do think Uggs Australia is significantly different from Deckers Outdoor Corporation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral with a leaning towards keep, but a definate dont delete. I did the merge of a number of Deckers products into the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article after this article was previously redirectd as a povfork noting that at that time the article was edited by a sockpuppet of a decker representative. I think from what I've seen on Brand UGG Australia that there is enough sourcing to address notability for a stand alone article, but the problem is that the parent company Deckers lacks enough to make it notable beyojnd a stub, which was why in I suggested the merging of this and other products[5]. An expansion of the Deckers article would see this as a valid daughter at some stage but currently the two are too much a like to warrant the separation. Gnangarra 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added your name and dateline to your comment, Gnangarra; hope you don't mind. Please sign all comments using four tildes. (~~~~) Thanks. Also, please notice that I've edited the article several times this evening, substantially improving the sourcing to remove any lingering WP:NOR concerns. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified keep. This should probably be discussed in the current RfC because the viable issue here is not deletion, but rather the structure and content of a family of related articles. "Ugg" the Australian generic term, and "UGG" the international brand, are distinct matters, both clearly notable. Merging them into the same article would be impractical at this point from a WP:WEIGHT perspective, because although the brand is a more prominent and global phenomenon than the generic term, the two articles are not on par as far as length, detail, quality of sourcing, and so on. Plus it's a dubious goal - why cover two distinct but related topics in the same article? Nor should a company's various brands all be lumped into the article about the company, not if the brands are notable on their own, and viable as stand-alone articles. I can't get into the claims of COI / POV editing (which might merit its own investigation and discussion), but the Teva article ought to be unmerged or recreated with better sourcing. As a model of how fashion conglomerate articles are structured, we have a separate article for the relatively unknown parent company, Phillips-Van Heusen, and separate articles for subsidiary brands they have acquired such as Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger , and Izod. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please consider the fact that Ugg boots already has its own article - and there should be information regarding the branded UGG Boots product in there, along with any copyright or trademark disputes - this makes sense from an encyclopaedic viewpoint. Any further content regarding the business should be in the company article. To have an article for the business division 'UGG Australia' in addition to a separate article on 'UGG Boots' will confuse the average joe user like me who goes to the Ugg boots page wanting to learn about Ugg boots. I'm an inclusionist and I'm all for more articles on Wikipedia - but not duplicates which will confuse people. Cheers IainUK talk 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Ugg boots article is about the generic boot, and so beyond a reference to the trademark dispute, it's not really appropriate to load it up with information about the Deckers brand. — e. ripley\talk 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ugg_Australia&oldid=1138751245"