Deletion of Ugg Australia

Comment: This should probably be discussed in the current RfC because the viable issue here is not deletion, but rather the structure and content of a family of related articles.  "Ugg" the Australian generic term, and "UGG" the international brand, are distinct matters, both clearly notable.  Merging them into the same article would be impractical at this point from a  perspective, because although the brand is a more prominent and global phenomenon than the generic term, the two articles are not on par as far as length, detail, quality of sourcing, and so on.  Plus it's a dubious goal - why cover two distinct but related topics in the same article?  Nor should a company's various brands all be lumped into the article about the company, not if the brands are notable on their own, and viable as stand-alone articles.  I can't get into the claims of COI / POV editing (which might merit its own investigation and discussion), but the Teva article ought to be unmerged or recreated with better sourcing.  As a model of how fashion conglomerate articles are structured, we have a separate article for the relatively unknown parent company, Phillips-Van Heusen, and separate articles for subsidiary brands they have acquired such as Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger , and Izod
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT)