Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck Head

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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Head

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

Appears to fail the WP:ORG and WP:PRODUCT guidelines. Though the brand may have been around since 1865 and can probably document its history of being bought and sold as a brand, there seems little evidence of significant impact. Searching Google News shows no relevant matches and general searching only shows press-release related material that does not provide adequate evidence of significant impact. The article has been around since 2008 and flagged for improvement for 18 months with no signs of sources being found to address the issue (previously reliant on answers.com as a source). I note that a previous edit comment refers to the brand as "ancient" and there may be an argument that current American brand names of over 140 years old should be considered automatically notable regardless of sources, though I would not consider that the case for brand names of, say, British origin. Raising for wider discussion for these reasons. Fæ (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, taking a look through the Google News search, I'm able to find quite a few references from various stages of the company's development, including its bankruptcy and some lawsuits it was involved in. It looks to me like there are sufficient sources to sustain the article, even if they're not properly used now. (Should note that I disagree with the idea that anything or anyone can be "automatically" notable, something is notable or not solely based upon amount of source coverage, not age. Here, the sources just happen to exist.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a slight clarification to be made here, the company has not been in business for 140+ years, it is only the brand name that can make this claim and the meaning of the brand has also changed over time as it is being used to sell quite different products from those it originally started out with. I think it is safe to assume that even the brand logo has been significantly adapted in that time. Fæ (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not sure that press coverage due to bankruptcies and legal troubles alone, when they're mere mentions, makes a company notable, but given the longevity of this one, I'm willing to lean towards keep. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the nomination the age criteria may be worth pursuing as a notability exception. In comparison the American brand/manufacturer Towle Silversmiths has been in continuous operation for 320 years, over twice as long, see List of oldest companies. Fæ (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm happy that this brand is sufficiently widely recognised (albeit only just) and it's certainly old enough.

Fæ's suggestion is interesting, of automatic assumption of notability for really old brands. I'd suggest "150 years and still extant" as a round number. For things post-Great Exhibition, I don't even think there's much difference between UK & US relative ages. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky area I'm afraid and would take more discussion than would be sensible for an AfD. I can easily find London-based brand names of, say, solicitors (e.g. Monro Fisher Wasbrough LLC), market traders and estate agents (e.g. Watts & Morgan) that can lay claim to being a brand/company/trading name of over 150 years. Automatic notability would be hotly disputed for some of these (and especially for those than might have gone out of business but have records spanning such a period). Fæ (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This brand seems to have fallen on hard times during the Web era (meaning fewer sources than might be desirable), but even in the 1980s was ubiquitous in the southern U.S.; it seems the introduction of Dockers by Levi Strauss was the first blow for their stodgy product line, and the purchase by Goody's, which at the time was expanding rapidly but was soon facing financial disaster, did further damage to the brand. However, it's still a very old brand with regional significance. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only do WP:ILIKEIT, but it passes the WP:GNG -- with flying colors. I found (and added to the article references) a long newspaper article (from the business page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch) about the brand, including the large amounts of money that were paid for the brand in some of the transactions that occurred in the last decade. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that source. Initially I was thinking the brand purchase might be a reason to merge under the parent company name, however the statement "merchandise sales exceeded $97 million in 2004" stuck out (other figures related to forecasts and so were rather less significant). I would find it hard to believe that there are no reliable sources from that period that could not support significant impact with these trading levels, had that fact been in the article I would have been inclined to mark for citation improvements rather than going to AFD. Fæ (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well established brand. I'm sure that there's more than enough independent coverage in the pages of Footwear News if one were to search their archive. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Article has enough reliable sources to pass GNG. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:18, 26 October 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.