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. postdlf (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepskin boots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sheepskin Boots (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)

• Delete article is a WP:POVFORK created to rewrite the history of Ugg boots, to reflect the desired outcome of a current US court case noting that this article history section significantly deviates and ommits information that is in Ugg_boots#History. Gnangarra 15:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnangarra 15:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Gnangarra, nothing could be further from the truth. It is not fair to give Decker all the publicity and keep calling them Ugg boots which as we have all confirmed is Australian "slang" for "sheepskin boots". In 99% of the world Ugg is trademarked and means only one company thus "a monopoly". This is a global encyclopedia and it needs to be referenced globally. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Illume1999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The facts are simple, Deckers have trademarks for UGG and every major company reffers to this style as ":Sheepskin boots".

I have never suggested replacing the very important Australian section or any of that history. The generic, global category just needed to be created and this puts all the companies on a level playing field and just features the style "globally".

I can tell that your "emotionally" involved here but Deckers won the war over UGG and they grow and grow. Other companies outside of Australia have moved on and they too, grow and grow.

The sheepskin page is fair and balanced, has wide general consensus here (please see all notes on the sheepskin page and also discussion on the "ugg boots" page) and should just remain addressing the style in general. Specific information about the unique Australian history and any trademark events are all yours. I hope you see this as just a general category page and if you look at the "Australian Work boots" page you will see that I have tried to just be very unbiased and very factual. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Illume1999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - I think that the Sheepskin Boots page is a simple, elegant, and respectful solution to sorting out international nomenclature. I think this is a great start and it is in keeping with the best traditions of Wikipedia which is to find consensus through discussion.--Factchk (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Factchk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Could this be because you see it as another space to misuse Wikipedia to push the UGG Australia trademark holder's point of view? Donama (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I suggest the Ugg boots article should actually have all of its material moved over here, and then that other article should be deleted. Ugg boots are sheepskin and this article could include all material from that one, plus additional material about other types of sheepskin boots. Granted, most of this article would then be about ugg boots (and the UGG Australia brand, among others), but this solution has great potential for the resolution of a long-standing content dispute. It should be kept. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. What you are suggesting is that the article called "Ugg boots" should only be about the one brand you clearly care most about. This is a complete perversion of the aims of Wikipedia. The "Ugg boots" article should be about all brands of ugg boots, not just the "UGG Australia" brand (which is not even observed in Australia). Furthermore, if this article is not deleted it should be about all kinds of sheepskin boots, not just the ugg style. Donama (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Donama, what you're doing is called a strawman argument. I've never tried to exclude material about other manufacturers of sheepskin boots. Nor is this an effort to make the Ugg boots article about one brand. This is about an effort to prevent Wikipedia from being "Australia centric," and reflect how the terms are used in the entire world, not just Australia and New Zealand. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, P&W if that was the case I'd be happy for the article to remain, but it was created with a very specific history that claims an origin in the 1970s by one person, wheres as Ugg boots history has always conveyed that ugg boots have been manfactured since the 1930. This article wasn't an honest attempt to reflect how the terms are used in the entire world but an intentional deceptionto rewrite history ie a WP:POVFORK Gnangarra 23:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then your issue isn't with the existence of the article, but its content. Change the content in the time honored way: edit the article. You'll probably be reverted, and then you can discuss it on the article Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The problem with this approach is that from what I am reading here, this particular kind of boot made of sheepskin is generally called "ugg boots" when spoken of in English - which means that the article about them should probably be called Ugg boots. Admittedly, I'm not from Australia so this isn't a topic with which I have personal experience. But the fact that "Ugg boots" outnumbers "sheepskin boots" 10:1 in a googlefight seems to indicate (in a non-definitive, rule-of-thumb sort of way) that it's a term with wide acceptance. Eco-Mono (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googlefights are rough and unreliable for making determinations like this. Notoriety is not the same as notability; and did you do the Googlefight in any language other than English? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am a born and raised Australian manufacturer of sheepskin boots and since 2005 I have only referred to this style as "sheepskin boots". I have traveled all over the world and have sold my boots on every continent. I have attended some of the industry's biggest trade shows in the USA and Europe and I have sold my products at wholesale and retail in most of the world and in cities like New York, London, Milan and Munich and it is very clear to me that "sheepskin boots" is how the classic, Australian sheepskin boot is referred to generically outside of Australia. Well done, Beauty, Bonza and its about Bloody time!--Barclaygla09 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Barclaygla09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Well then you are in a very small minority in Australia then. And given that your contribution here was your second ever edit to Wikipedia I can't help but be suspicious about your vote. You'd better hope a WP:SOCK puppet check isn't done on your account or you could be blocked. Donama (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donama, whatever happened to WP:AGF and "don't bite the newbies"? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added Sheepskin Boots to the nomination because it is a duplicate of the uncapitalized title. Goodvac (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect (or completely rewrite). At the moment it is a clear content fork of Ugg boots, seemingly circumventing existing discussion and consensus on that page by directly copying much of the content (without sourcing) from ugg boots. As mentioned on the ugg boots talk page, there may be call to have an article about sheepskin boots in general, one type of which is the ugg boot, but there is no need to duplicate existing content in order to circumvent debate. This would be an A10 candidate, but it is (and was) a plausible redirect, and would be better treated as one. - Bilby (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've redirected Sheepskin Boots to Sheepskin boots, as the content of the two articles was identical. - Bilby (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect/Rewrite as per everything Bilby has said. The content of the article is wrong and a POV fork as mentioned, and thus I would support deleting it outright to avoid such a gross perversion of the aims of Wikipedia. In the end though, an article about generic sheepskin boots should be allowed to exist so I would be happy also to see it properly rewritten and remain. Donama (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Conditional Keep given the changed content of the article, on the condition that it does not revert to being a commercially-biased fork of ugg boots. Donama (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Coment - This is simply an extension of the edit warring over commercial POV bias in ugg boots. Without that I don't believe this article would ever have been started. Donama (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The Ugg boots article is about a particular kind of "unisex sheepskin boots", and the sheepskin boots article has zero content beyond a discussion of "ugg boots". For this article to survive, there must both be other types of sheepskin boot which deserve Wikipedia coverage, and a reason for the category called "sheepskin boots" to be notable in and of itself, rather than just having different articles for different kinds of sheepskin boots. Eco-Mono (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Most of the Chinese consumers consider “Sheepskin boots” as the correct universal term, they like these fashionable and comfortable products, and the most popular brand is UGG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda1997 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Linda1997 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: I see this as a general information page about sheepskin boots and it is the correct term to use when referencing this type of boot. UGG Australia has the trademark for the term ugg, therefore there should be an article for the generic sheepskin boot. (hapamama) [youngteacher] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngteacher (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Youngteacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Merge into redirect to Ugg boots since it merely duplicates material. Not necessarily a POV fork, but a fork nonetheless - the articles clearly cover the same ground, since the ugg article is not just about the trademarked brand. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic" without prejudice to later re-creation either as a redirect or as a comprehensive article on the subject by a neutral editor. The article as it stands is part of a campaign by certain editors to convert an article about a generic topic into advertising material for a commercial brand. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The content here does not seem to have been copied from the competing article. And the idea that sheepskin boots are especially Australian is mistaken. For example, here's a source discussing their usage by the Inuit — Sinews of survival — while this source indicates that the RAF wore sheepskin boots in WW1 — British Air Forces 1914-18. The issue seems similar to that of the Snuggie which we have now at Sleeved blanket as there are numerous trade-names for this. MOS:TM states , "Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed." and so we should prefer a generic title in plain English, such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except that here we have a brand name derived from a generic name, rather than vice versa. StAnselm (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I'm surprised by the comment that it isn't copied from the "competing" article - everything from "design" down is identical, word-for-word, to what is in ugg boots, even with the original reference tags (but no references), and the rest is different wording saying exactly the same things, bar for a bit of OR and synthesis about sheep. - Bilby (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I vote we keep the Ilume article for Sheepskin boots as it is the generic term for the boots. Arguments can be made on whether a boot can be branded an "Ugg" but they can all be called sheepskin boots - they either are made of sheepskin or they are not. Fctchk is right this is an an elegant solution - after all no one can own a descriptive term they all fall under the name sheepskin - this is fair to all. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what the elegant solution is. It seems all that has been done is that content has been copied from one article to another, making an unacceptable content fork, exactly as is described in Wikipedia:Content fork#Unacceptable types of forking. The original article still stands, the new one simply duplicates the content, and there is still no article on sheepskin boots as a historical term outside of a particular style. - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that this article is taking shape however, it is very difficult to get some consensus here as the article was so edited over night. I had only put out a first draft and had appealed for help in writing this article however, the references to "Australian sheepskin boots" were nearly all replaced with "ugg boots" and now we have an article that doesn't mention them at all.

The big question still remains, if 20 million people in Australian know the "Australian sheepskin boot style" as an "ugg boot", what shall the rest of the World's 6.908 billion people call them? And before another Australian editor says "ugg boots", that term is trademarked and cannot be used to describe the style "legally" outside of Australia. Its not an oppinion, this is an absolute fact.

If this community doesn't like to call the style "sheepskin boots" or "Australian sheepskin boots", even though this is the term used today by international and Australian manufacturers, Industry buyers and consumers alike, what shall the "generic" term be for this style that is currently the biggest selling style of boots in the world?--Illume1999 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The generic term for this style of boots is "ugg boots", and its variant spellings "ugh boots" and "ug boots". The notion that the term is trademarked anywhere other than the United States is at best a novel synthesis of original research and at worst an outright fabrication. I had previously assumed good faith on the part of the spokespeople for the Deckers company and believed that the term was also trademarked in the Netherlands, but it seems more likely that the existence of the generic term was dismissed as irrelevant to a case, not of trademark infringement, but of outright counterfeiting. The 5% of the world's population who live in the United States can not demand that the 94.5% who live in neither the United States nor Australia (of whom I am one) refer to ugg boots by clumsy euphemisms such as "Australian sheepskin boots". Lastly, please do not make legal threats. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davosaurus, The trademark for "UGG" in the Netherlands is listed on Deckers trademarks (link on "ugg boots" page see Benelux -http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1834017/UGGglobaltms-pdf-march-31-2010-3-03-pm-88k?da=y). If you have an other name for this style, please suggest it. The term "Australian sheepskin boots" or "classic sheepskin boots" is used by every manufacturer outside of Australia and this is the "Generic" name used in most of the world--Illume1999 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Sheepskin boots were around long before they became an Ugg fashion statement. Notable.—RJH (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the article was mostly unsourced, I rewrote it from a selection of sources to this version. The idea of this version was to provide some historical and geographical perspective by providing examples such as Alaska, England and Tibet. Another editor, has now reverted this, replacing it with a version which focuses exclusively upon the Ugg boot dispute. This editor (Factchk) seems to be a single-purpose account. Editors should please note the flip-flopping state of the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please read Ugg Boots history they have been manfactured as ugg boots since the 1930's the history as written in Sheepskin boots is purposefully being written to conform with the history according to Deckers as being presented in a US court case. I add the history of Ugg boots and renamed the section, but the purpose of this AFD is to have that history washing deleted. Gnangarra 23:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge - per Bilby and Gnangarra above SatuSuro 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep subject to the status of the original article, Ugg boots. I am concerned that to keep this article is to allow a nomination to delete Ugg boots, and so I vote Keep on the sole condition that the original article is retained. I believe Sheepskin boots is a valid WP:SPINOFF from it, rather than a FORK. As usual, it is pointless to argue the intentions of the article creator, mostly because there is never any firm evidence of it, but also because the article subject is either valid or invalid whatever the reasons for creating it (and is valid in this case).

As usual, the oxymoronic POVFORK is being misused, but more than it is usually, the oxymoronic incompatibility is highly visible. It is claimed that there is a great deal of material in common with both articles, and yet the material in the new article is being branded as POV. How can this be unless the material in the original article was POV? I ask that you please modify your votes to regular WP:FORK, instead of the redundant and erroneous POVFORK. Anarchangel (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • comment The nomination was based on this version which at the time was valid WP:CSD#A10 candidate but because of the nature of the subject I knew that such a deletion would be disputed hence the AFD, while your assessment is based on the current article that doesnt warrant an assessment of the nomination as a miss use of WP:POVFORK which clearly the article was at the time of the nomination. Gnangarra 03:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • comment Thank you Anarchangel for stating the obvious, it is very clear now that it is the Australian editors that have their own POV that just cannot accept that this is a global encyclopedia and should not be used to push their own agenda. The original article that I submitted was just a beginning and I welcomed other editors to help in the writing of this article. this version The editing that has gone on over the last few days by some is very telling that they cannot and should not participate here. In one edit, Gnangarra notes "remove non notable brands, add other Ugg manufacturers". It is Gnangarra's "opinion" that EMU who are the 2nd largest manufacturer of this style and sold in over 60 countries is not notable! Several other international brands were removed including Celtic, an originator in the UK who sold their UK "UGG" trademark to Deckers and "Overland" who are an American company manufacturing this exact style of sheepskin since the early 1970s. Uggs N Ruggs was added however, this Australian company cannot sell "legally" outside of Australia (due to their name) and really does not belong in this "Global" page on 'sheepskin boots". I have never suggested that the history of "Ugg boots" in Australia be changed or amended, only that the global, generic name "sheepskin boots" get its own page. Can we please bring in some senor editors that can lock down this article and help tweak the content in a factual and unbiased manner? --Illume1999 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment WP:NOTABILITY is as defined by the Wikipedia community. As for your claim Uggs-N-Rugs cannot sell outside of Australia (due to their name), Illume1999 obviously you have access to information that isnt in the public arena please provide that proof. You say Ugg boots are sheepskin boots but when you wrote the article you ignored the history of Sheepskin boots in Australia prior to 1970 and only wrote what was has been the company line of Deckers. see this version or there this version on the Ugg boot talk page and yet another version was posted at the alternative capitilisation, those action are a very clear example of POV peddling. Gnangarra 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gnangarra, I have changed that to "Legally" sell... I was using research on counterfeiting etc as as Deckers have trademarks all over the world. As the Australians are very aware of this,I was just relaying that due to Deckers trademarks, Australian companies are calling them "Sheepskin boots" or "Australian sheepskin boots". This has been well established. Additionally, I did not ignore any history and asked for help on my "Draft". If editors could "tweak" the article with factual points to help this along, we would have this completed by now. --Illume1999 (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment so now your accusing a company of operating illegally, seriously you should be removing/appologising for such claims or at the very least be providing proof those are serious allegations your making in a very public forumn. I'd suggest you put your shovel away and stop digging the whole is getting very deep and murky Gnangarra 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is a quote from the owner of Uggs-N-Rugs "The McDougalls claim to have lost 90 percent of their international business since 2004. Their daughter gave up entirely after Deckers shut down her eBay business. “Almost anyone who sells anything with the word ug, ugg or ugh is infringing on their trademark,” Bronwyn says. “There’s no argument.”" http://magazine.wsj.com/features/behind-the-brand/the-golden-fleece/3/ --Illume1999 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very nice quote but that doesnt support you claim Uggs-N-Rugs cannot sell outside of Australia (due to their name) or your updated claim cannot sell "legally" outside of Australia (due to their name) I again ask you provide something that supports your assertions or withdraw them. Gnangarra 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gnanrarra, I do not wish to "muddy" this, I was just using a quote from that company which I felt was quite clear. I hereby retract my comment on Uggs-n-Ruggs in the interest of moving onto the topic at hand. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — consensus so far appears to be Keep. At worst, there appears to be no consensus either way, which defaults back to Keep. Let's all try to remain calm, be courteous and collegial with each other, and always WP:AGF. Illume is inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia; please don't bite the newbie. Instead, gently help him/her learn and find the way.

"... it is very clear now that it is the Australian editors that have their own POV that just cannot accept that this is a global encyclopedia and should not be used to push their own agenda." Welcome to Wikipedia Illume. I agree that Wikipedia should be a global encyclopedia and represent not just Australians or even all English speaking people, but all people. Usage of the term "ugg boots" in China, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States differs from its usage in Australia and New Zealand. In virtually every nation in the world except Australia and New Zealand, it's a registered trademark of Deckers and its use for any other commercial purpose is illegal. But the Australian and New Zealand editors have very strong feelings about this. They need to be addressed gently and courteously. And so do you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Thank you Phoenix and Winslow. Please see the discussion page as I feel that there is a very good solution there for all. When I first looked at this section many months ago, I was thoroughly confused! I feel that my suggestion combined with the current page is the solution that will make this clearer not to mention "Fair and balanced" for all, and worthy of an encyclopedia, the way this should be.--Illume1999 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clicking the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, I see there are 839 results for "sheepskin boots". Looking over the results on the first page of results, they seem to be popular enough item for the news to mention them. Them coming from Australia to the America market, fashion news, plus mentioning how it is popular enough for one company to do well, etc, proves its notability. Dream Focus 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ugg boots as a WP:CFORK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Ugg boots are a fashion staple, at least for the past few years. They are notable and have been talked about many times on national television, in fashion industry and magazines that focus on fashion. Sheepskin boots article should likely have an entire section on Ugg boots popularizing Sheepskin boots but not all Sheepskin boots are Uggs, clearly. Jnast1 (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2011 (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.