Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugg Australia: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→Ugg Australia: keep |
HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) →Ugg Australia: 2 replies |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*'''Redirect''' to [[Deckers Outdoor Corporation]] as suggested here and on [[Wikipedia:PRODUCT]], 'Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy'. It isn't large so there's no reason to fork currently. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Redirect''' to [[Deckers Outdoor Corporation]] as suggested here and on [[Wikipedia:PRODUCT]], 'Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy'. It isn't large so there's no reason to fork currently. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white</span><small> [[User_talk:Neon white|talk]]</small> 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
::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, onjects 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. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
::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, onjects 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. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::"Celebrities" and a large profit margin doesn't make something notable. You're getting dangerously close to spam now. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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! :) [[User:IainUK|<font color="red">'''Iain'''</font><font color="blue">'''UK'''</font>]] [[User talk:IainUK|<font color="green">''talk''</font>]] 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
*'''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! :) [[User:IainUK|<font color="red">'''Iain'''</font><font color="blue">'''UK'''</font>]] [[User talk:IainUK|<font color="green">''talk''</font>]] 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
::[[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. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' Notable for the Trademark controversy. —[[User:Pengo|Pengo]] 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Notable for the Trademark controversy. —[[User:Pengo|Pengo]] 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:11, 23 August 2010
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep Not a great article, but a notable topic. Many more people know UGG than Deckers.Borock (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Redirect to Deckers Outdoor Corporation as suggested here and on Wikipedia:PRODUCT, 'Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy'. It isn't large so there's no reason to fork currently. --neon white talk 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- 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, onjects 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)
- "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)
- 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, onjects 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep Notable for the Trademark controversy. —Pengo 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)