Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian boots

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move. ugen 64 21:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Australian boots

I have a bad feeling that that this article is bordering on advertising for a boot manufacturer, although it seems disguised as an encyclopedic article. I am not at all an expert on fashion, but the articles makes no statement as to who is recognizing Australian boots as a unique style, I seem to remember something called "peacock term" or "weasel term". Sjakkalle 07:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Ugg boots. -- Hoary 08:06, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
- They are not the same thing as Ugg boots, they have been made since the 1860s and are uniquely Australian, the article should be moved to Australian work boots and kept. The odd claim about fashion should be removed unless someone has a source. --nixie 11:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and rename to Australian work boots as per nixie. Definitely not the same as ugg boots. --bainer 13:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nixie is right, they are not Ugg boots (eew) nor are they known as Australian boots, but rather work/worker boots. In context, the article title should be Australian work boots. I vote KEEP so long as the name change occurs, and the article is significantly improved/expanded. As it is, the article does not warrant inclusion.--Cyberjunkie 13:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Clearly nothing like Ugg boots—read the description. Rename/keep. Rossi call them Work Boots - ELASTIC SIDE; Blundstone seem to just call them Originals; R. M. Williams just call them elastic-sided boots. I had no idea they were uniquely Australian until this came up. --ScottDavis 15:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If we can have an article on aglets or Flip-flops, I don't see a problem with this. My prefered title might be elastic sided boots, which seems to be the industry term. Oh, and here's a link about fashionability in Canada [1]. Securiger 17:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per nixie. --InShaneee 19:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per nixie or at Elastic sided boots. Alphax ^τεχ 06:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move to Australian work boots. Megan1967 07:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Move to Australian work boots. I don't think there's an Aussie alive who doesn't know RM's. (Yes that's what we call them). --Chammy Koala 16:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, happy to have renamed as per suggestions above (prefer elastic-sided boots) but not to redirect as Ugg boots. I also had no idea that they were Australian until reading this article. --AYArktos 08:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rename as Australian work boots. They are distinctive and notable enough to have their own entry. One colloquial name used for them is blunnies (derived from the dominant brand Blundstone) --Takver 07:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rename as AWB (or blunnies ;) Felix the Cassowary 06:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rename as AWB or blundstones (effectively used as a generic (ala Hoover) in Australia).Fifelfoo 02:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.