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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esky[edit]

Esky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability kashmiri ^TALK 10:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A google search suggests this is the top cooler brand in Australia, and (as the article says) has become a generic term for a cooler. To me, both of those suggest notability. A fair bit of support for the genericised term claim can be found with a google news search: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=esky+cooler&tbm=nws Korruski^Talk 11:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thoughts, maybe Merge with Coleman_Company. Not sure the brand justifies a separate article.Korruski^Talk 11:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with cooler. The Esky article is basically redundant. The tiny amount of unique information it contains could easily be included in cooler. A complication is that in Australia, Esky is a brand name. It has also become a genericised trademark for any type of cooler. So due to the common quote "Esky is an Australian invention", many Australians believe that generic coolers are an Australian invention (I am not sure that they are since the Esky article gives no inception date for the Esky). If actual coolers were an Australian invention and the first were branded Esky, that would be notable. But if it is only the name Esky that is the Australian invention, while coolers themselves already existed, then Esky becomes less notable. Format (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this page doesn't survive, some disambiguation will need to be created to handle the headnotes at the top of the page. "Esky" was also the name of the original mascot for Esquire magazine; I'm surprised to find no current mention of him in that article, because he was quite well known in his time. See e.g., [1][2][3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Local words for a "cooler" belong to a dictionary (e.g., Wiktionary), not an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia entry should contain encyclopaedic information - which in this article I find nil. Hence nomination. kashmiri ^TALK 01:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliables sources per Talk:Esky#References. Poor article quality/content are not valid reasons for deletion. Hack (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Most of the references that you placed there are not accessible online, and those that are, are about a device called cooler (even if using it local synonym), not about something different called "esky". kashmiri ^TALK 12:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their online availability is irrelevant, they all refer to the Esky brand, rather than coolers in general. You may wish to consider familiarising yourself with WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically the section WP:OSO. Hack (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhmm... can you show how the first, third, fourth, fifth one are not about a cooler in general but about the brand? The first one even states explicitly: "The Esky name is synonymous with food and drink coolers", and "Most brands [of the "esky"] offer a choice of sizes, from jumbo-size campers' specials to coolers just big enough to take half a dozen cans." BTW, I have an uneasy feeling that half of the references are actually paid advertisements (their only substance is glorification of the device, and promotion of specific brands). kashmiri ^TALK 13:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "Esky" is what Australians will search for, not "Coleman Company" or "cooler". It's beyond "a generic term" for a cooler here, it is the generic name for a cooler in Australia. In fact the word "cooler" is effectively only used in the context of describing the extent to which you are more trendy than someone else - "I'm cooler than Jeff". "Cooler" is the word generic brands use so as not to infringe on Esky's (now Coleman's) trademark. It's part of the Australian vernacular ([4], [5], [6]). I see no reason to delete an iconic regional colloquialism. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: So if it's simply a vernacular for "cooler", why not redirect to the main article? Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. kashmiri ^TALK 11:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "a vernacular" - I said it was part of the Australian vernacular. It's not another word for "cooler", it's the only word for cooler here in Australia. Many Australians would be genuinely surprised to know that other countries call it something other than an "Esky". Just like we use the term "footpath" instead of "sidewalk" and a "thong" is something you wear on your feet, not on your arse. But of course our Footpath article is about nature trails and to find a pair of thongs you need to use the American "flip-flops". Redirecting everything to the counterpart Americanism is not a good solution. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are arguing that Wikipedia should have separate articles whenever something is called differently somewhere? An article for "foothpath" and another one for "sidewalk"? I still urge you to read WP:NOTADICTIONARY. kashmiri ^TALK 16:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that Wikipedia should have separate articles whenever something is actually different and reliable sources say so. I'm also arguing that cultural icons (from cultures other than the US) should be covered by Wikipedia because, as an encyclopaedia, that's exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. What next? Merge Yorkie and Mars Bar to chocolate bar because they are all the same thing, just from different cultures? And nowhere is "Mars Bars" the generic, nation-wide term for chocolate bar anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was so much independent coverage of "esky" as it is of Mars or Yorkie, then why not. Currently, except for two sentences on the brand, the Esky article talks about a generic cooler. Hence the suggestion to redirect to cooler. Of course, if you feel like improving the article so that it talks about the brand and not about coolers in Australian, then be WP:BOLD :) kashmiri ^TALK 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit like Kleenex versus Q tips. Both brands and, in the US, generic terms. But because there's some actual notability and something to say about Kleenex (big company that makes multiple products), it has an actual article. On the other hand there's not much to say about Q tips, it is just a brand not a big company, so that is simply a redirect. Format (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the equivalent to the argument here is that Kleenex should redirect to "Facial tissue" because that's what the rest of the world calls them ("tissues") and Kleenex is a generic term in one country only. But that's silly, of course. Interestingly, the Kleenex article points to the fact that the word now features in dictionaries as the generic word for "tissue" as "proof" of its generic use. The Australian National Dictionary (Oxford) does the same with regard to "Esky" in fact it also includes the non-proprietary "esky" (no capital) in reference to it's use as a generic term. And Kashmiri, these discussions are about article potential, not the article as it currently stands. There is no obligation to fix an article in opining for it to be kept. What is in the article now is irrelevant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of references with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nearly impossible for non-Australians to understand, but to us, this is like suggesting Twinkie should be redirected to Sponge cake. The refs I added show that the brand is iconic in Australia, it's not just a cooler. The sale was seen as symptomatic of the increase in multinationalism and the decline in Australian owned brands. It's not just a cooler. The-Pope (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No one has proposed in these comments that esky be deleted, just merged. If this article esky were to be merged with cooler people searching for esky or directly typing in esky would still be presented with an article that is 100% about eskies/coolers. The article would be named cooler, and esky would be listed among the alternate names. This is exactly the same as what happens when someone searches Wikipedia for "bring a plate" or when they directly type in "bring a plate". They reach an article about bring a plate - it is just that the article is actually named "potluck". However the article does list "bring a plate" as one of the alternate names of "potluck". The footpath example is not a good one, because the actual footpath article is about something different to what an Australian understands a "footpath" to be. A twinkie is not only a brand name but is also a specific item which is not exactly the same as a generic sponge cake. Even without the name, people would still recognise a twinkie. But with esky, take off the name, and an Esky brand cooler is just like any other cooler. It must be said that this article does seem stable and pretty much does stick to describing the actual brand that is "esky". However the company isn't especially notable except for the fact that in Australia "esky" became a genericised trademark. Had that not have happened barely anyone would know or care about the company / brand named "esky". I note there is an article about Igloo Products Corporation. Format (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to give the "generic term" part some context, I found this very interesting article. It's particularly interesting because the "inventors" given coverage there do everything they can to use the term "cooler", knowing that using the term "Esky" would be a trademark infringement. But the journalist, writing in the Australian vernacular, uses the term "esky" (non-capitalised) on several occasions, including in the headline. The only context in which an Australian would use the term "cooler" is with regard to their own trademarked product for which they can't use the term everyone else uses. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article has now been expanded quite significantly, making merging into another article impractical. Given the lack of arguments for deletion (as pointed out above), is there any reason this shouldn't be closed by the next passing admin? St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Next I suggest someone should split "motorised esky" to a separate article, because - certainly - it is extremely important for the Australian culture and surely must be something entirely different than an ordinary ride-on cooler! Quoting hundreds of "sources" which used the phrase "motorised esky". Seriously, folks, an esky is just a cooler, and its shape, type of plastic, and special fondness for it among the Australians can be nicely described under cooler. kashmiri ^TALK 00:52, 12 March 2015 (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.