BoomCase: Sadads ( talk ) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 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, L iz 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.  – Tera tix ₵ 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.  – Tera tix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Using LLM's is going to be inevitable when you suffer from dyslexia, how does Wikipedia plan on functioning in the singularity next year or the next decade if you can't communicate clearly?  I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not.  It's like being mad I used spellcheck.  Address the points I made in the original post, and not something irrelevant to the argument.  I stand by my original point that if you lived in Northern/Southern California and you are in this space you have heard of Boomcase, and they deserve to be recognized in some capacity.  Mrironmonkey ( talk ) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not Cut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted .  – Tera tix ₵ 11:39, 27 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.  – Tera tix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Editor Mrironmonkey is a WP:SPA who has made no other editor to Wikipedia.  scope_creep Talk 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thats not true at all - please actually look at the sources and read them.  Not reading the sources is highly disrespectful to the editors and I trust this vote will be given very little weight.  - Sources discussing the company in more than passing plus interviews - 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20141224233949/http://blog.urbanoutfitters.com/blog/uo_studio_visits_boomcase Yes some are short but wired or the NYTimes are not running an ad for BoomCase nor are any of the blogs or websites sourced - Custom Boomboxes Fashioned from Vintage Suitcases | WIRED https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/garden/audio-equipment-shopping-with-jonah-takagi.html Plus the books - BoomCaseBookMadetoLast-2.jpg (1600×2314) (wp.com) - https://books.google.com/books? id=NNyjAQAACAAJ https://library.tcdc.or.th/record/view/b00032508#:~:text=Technology%20%26%20Entertainment-,Boom%20Case,-Argus%20C3 https://i0.wp.com/theboomcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/retrodesignBookBoomCaseBraunBoomBox.jpg MistaKoko ( talk ) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did read the sources.  You hardly expected me to write up individual refutations of 32 individual sources, did you?  Instead I summarised their nature.  Look, I'll level with you.  Pick the three best sources you've got and I'll write out individual evaluations of them.  – Tera tix ₵ 08:25, 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_creep Talk 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_creep Talk 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_creep Talk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page: 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.  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.  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] GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.  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 .  – Tera tix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi,  Thanks for taking the time to look closer at some of the sources.  While I understand what you are saying, the thing is most articles like this are going to be very similar to this no matter what.  Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it.  Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article.  You would be hard pressed to find a review or write up on a product that does not include its price.  I understand if these articles were about a large speaker company such as JBL or Pioneer and then trying to say these are all paid PR or non independent but being that BoomCase is a very small company its highly doubtful they had anything to do with the articles.  It seems to me the viral nature of their story/product helped them receive so much press.  There are so many things I Wish to cite from their press page but they are unfortunately from magazines that are not available online.  ( Press | The BoomCase© )  Also this has now become an argument started by Sadads about a "flash in the pan" sensation to an argument about references.  I believe I should have the opportunity to find and improve the sources instead of a complete deletion.  I think have shown it is not a flash in the pan by my first reply to Sadads.  There are still the three published books cited that I would like to use to write a better article.  But im still not sure how to do this since I cant find the txt online other than a few images from BoomCases press page, but even then its not the full txt.  This is from above but just to show again the 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".  - I have asked for help with this but have not gotten any unfortunately.  I will keep trying.  Thanks again.  MistaKoko ( talk ) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For (hopefully) more input on the sourcing, which is being strongly questioned as to its contribution to our SIGCOV requirements.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it.  Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article.  I'm not saying the articles aren't independent because they link to where to buy a BoomCase or list its price.  I'm saying they aren't independent because they contain virtually no information or analysis that isn't either  (a) directly attributable to Odbert  (b) obviously dependent on a narrative provided by Odbert or  (c) obvious sales copy.  See WP:ORGIND for more about what "independent source" means in the context of companies.  As for the books: Art Without Waste just has pictures of two BoomCases with no information beyond bare captions; Retro and Vintage Design manages a bare six sentences; Made to Last ...  OK, that one might actually qualify as a decent source.  But we need multiple independent sources to meet our notability guidelines.  I'll grant you've got one.  – Tera tix ₵ 07:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for looking through it more - However I think its hard to say all the references are obvious sales copy or dependent on Odbert.  I doubt all them contacted BoomCase to write up their articles and again if you are writting about a product there is usually some sort of pitch about buying it or not.  Also, Art without waste is 4 images not 2.  Retro and Vintage design - It seems that if a large publisher includes you in a book with a two page feature of product that its a bit notable.  I have also seen online there is more written about BoomCase in other parts of the Book but its on Instagram and I know that is consider a good place to source...  You also mentioned the Cnet article could be a source... but You say -...   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.   The author IS giving their independent analysis by saying the price sounds reasonable for a made in America audio design.  Thats their opinion and analysis.  Do you think BoomCase told them to say this or something?  I also translated another article - Clublife Magazine 1.2013 by Clipboard Media - Issuu - 200+ words and seems independent.  MistaKoko ( talk ) 18:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per Tera 's analysis of the sources, fails WP:NCORP .  While secondary coverage of the company in generally reliable sources certainly exists, most of it isn't independent or significant enough.  Mooonswimmer 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the fair comment and "weak delete" and not a mean attack like the first two commentors did initially.  This doesn't even include all they wrote on my talk page or the conflict of interest noticeboard...   I appreciate it.  I translated this https://issuu.com/clipboardpublishing/docs/clublife_magazine_1_2013/14 but its probably too late now.  Hopefully I can keep working on this page somehow and try again later.  MistaKoko ( talk ) 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete After considering all the arguments and analysis above and the history of this article on Wiki, it does not pass WP:NCORP .  Edwardx ( talk ) 13:12, 2 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete