Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoomCase: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
more thorough analysis
Line 50: Line 50:
::[[User:MistaKoko|MistaKoko]] ([[User talk:MistaKoko|talk]]) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:MistaKoko|MistaKoko]] ([[User talk:MistaKoko|talk]]) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
*A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:
#[https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/ CNET]: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not [[WP:ORGIND|independent coverage]]. The author opens by noting {{tq|I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs}} – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: {{tq|Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it.}} This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: {{tq|Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.}}
#The second source is hosted by [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933 HuffPost], but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have [[WP:TRADES|a presumption against]] using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20140920085528/http://californiahomedesign.com/trending/2012/02/14/get-your-jam-thanks-sacramento-based-designer California Home Design] again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to {{tq|Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]}}
#[https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo GQ] is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
#[https://web.archive.org/web/20150416133918/http://www.thisismelo.com/feature/boomcase-vintage-suitcases-turned-portable-boomboxes/ MELO] is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are {{tq|changing the speaker game for good}} and call {{tq|each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit}}. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:45, 26 April 2024

BoomCase

BoomCase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Hi Sadads,
I think it is a big stretch to say BoomCase was just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation. Lets start with some of the bigger things.
As the article states BoomCase has been featured in at least 3 published Books. The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan".
Secondly, I would argue It has even transcended into popular culture by being featured in a globally broadcasted main event WWE wrestling match - Brock Lesnar BoomBox by BoomCase | The BoomCase© , being used in commercials - BoomCase in H&R Block Commercial | The BoomCase© , in a popular Bollywood movie, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-in-bollywood-film/ , featured on the Ukraine's #1 travel show in 2015 , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-featured-on-ukraines-1-travel-show/, and being used for art work on beer cans - https://theboomcase.com/melvin-beer-x-boomcase/ , among many other things. (Blog | The BoomCase©)
There are a lot of things one could include just by looking at their Blog (Blog | The BoomCase©) or press page (https://theboomcase.com/press/) that would counter the flash in the pan idea.
Finally, the BoomCase is still an operating company 14+ years later. Usually, one hit wonders peak and then disappear. Seeing that BoomCase is still around being featured in press, tv and used for architectural projects in multiple countries with their new speaker wall product I can't agree with the labeling of "flash-in-the-pan media sensation". MistaKoko (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wanted to point out MistaKoko's editing since September 2019 has been virtually exclusively geared towards getting this company's article into mainspace – they almost certainly have a conflict of interest. – Teratix 14:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I appreciate your thorough perspective Sadads, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of BoomCase as an "overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance." On the contrary, BoomCase has demonstrated enduring significance and cultural impact in the realm of portable audio technology whether you are familiar with them or not.
Firstly, BoomCase's longevity speaks volumes about its relevance and staying power. Since its inception in 2009, the company has continued to thrive and evolve, expanding its reach and influence both domestically and internationally. This sustained presence contradicts the notion of being a mere "flash-in-the-pan" phenomenon.
Furthermore, BoomCase's contributions extend beyond mere media sensation. The company has been involved in numerous art installations and collaborations, showcasing its innovative approach to design and technology. Its products have been sought after by a diverse clientele, including celebrities and influencers, further underscoring its cultural significance and relevance.
Additionally, BoomCase's impact on popular culture cannot be overlooked. From its presence in mainstream media to its integration into various events and settings, BoomCase has become synonymous with style, innovation, and quality in the portable audio market.
In light of these considerations, I believe that BoomCase warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. I personally hate that a company can exist for this long and have physical impact on communities and still have to fight for a basic Wiki page like they don't exist, they do exist and have accomplished more than most companies. They deserve a page. Mrironmonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using LLMs to write your comments is highly disrespectful to other editors. I trust this !vote will be given zero weight. – Teratix 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete name-checks some impressive-sounding sources, but they either only discuss the company in passing or seem to be advertorials rather than genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Mrironmonkey is a WP:SPA who has made no other editor to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete References seems to particularly promotional, many offering product for sale failing WP:SIRS and breaking the Terms of use, or a passing mentions of type that fail WP:CORPDEPTH or the type of PR that are paid placements by the company that fail WP:ORGIND. Either way, the whole thing is a crock and straight up advert that should be G11'd from the get go. It currently fails WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creepTalk 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On that top of that it was declined multiples times from AFC, before being accepted by a editor who is now checkuser blocked. The whole thing is absolute crock. scope_creepTalk 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are not even reading the sources. How are these passing mentions? What proof do you have that the sources are PR? You cant just make claims when you have no idea what would have caused certain websites to write about a product. Just because a product received significant coverage doesn't make it paid. BoomCase is very small company of 5 or less people that started out by going viral I doubt they had money try to pay all these newspapers, books, and blogs to cover them. Come on now.
https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933
https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo
MistaKoko (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creepTalk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:
  1. CNET: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not independent coverage. The author opens by noting I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it. This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
  2. The second source is hosted by HuffPost, but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have a presumption against using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
  3. California Home Design again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
  4. GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
  5. MELO is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are changing the speaker game for good and call each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Teratix 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]