Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound Blaster Roar


 * 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. Article's subject is found to be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sound Blaster Roar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a portable Bluetooth speaker made by Creative Technology. There is no claim to notability, none of the references, either in the article, nor that I can independently find, support any notability.

Article was created by WP:SPA editor, whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to the article Creative Technology and articles on its products. I suspect a WP:COI and have warned the editor.

I PRODded the article with the concern "Just another speaker; no claim to notability." It was dePRODded (as a "minor edit"!) with no explanation by the creating editor an hour later. Another editor tagged it for notability. Again, the creating editor removed the tag as a minor edit without explanation.

It seems to me to be just another computer speaker. Probably a pretty good one, but not notable, and the article appears to be part of a promotional campaign for Creative Technology using Wikipedia.

Note, I plan to AFD Sound BlasterAxx for similar reasons. See also Articles for deletion/Sound BlasterAxx, just opened. TJRC (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fails WP:PRODUCT. Redirect both to Creative_Technology. Please bundle the other AfD into this one rather than making two separates. Pax 00:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Two AfDs is the appropriate way to handle it. Multiple-article AfDs are rarely helpful.
 * The link you provide is advice on what to do when a product is not notable, not a guide to determine if a product is notable. Please provide an actual rationale as to why you feel this product is not-notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Answered in comment below. Pax 20:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - tons and tons of professional reviews and other reliable source coverage exist, meeting the GNG by a mile. Spending two seconds on Google news will establish that: .  A COI (even if proven) is not a valid reason for deletion, nor is there anythign wrong with the article creator removing a PROD tag. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I gonna go with ThaddeusB on this.  For example: this review from PC Magazine, this review from TechRadar, and this review from Paste.  There are more available on a Google search.  I'm sensitive to spam, COI editing, and such, but this is a legitimate topic.  If necessary, we can rewrite it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: All the keep votes so far reference reviews, but WP:Routine reviews do not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Pax 18:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, product reviews are exactly how you establish notability of a product. Routine coverage includes product announcements, but professional reviews are not in any way routine.  The vast majority of products never received one, for example.  If you are going to quote a guideline, at least bother to read it - neither link you gave lists product reviews. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may, where does it specifically say that about reviews in the notability rules? If a restaurant can't be notable from a review per WP:Corpdepth, how does one of its dishes (i.e., their product) become notable via a review? (It sounds to me like the wording of Corpdepth should be changed, as right now an apparent contradiction exists). Pax 05:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The restaurant rule is silly (and probably does not reflect actual consensus), but regardless this isn't a restaurant. If the rule was meant to apply to all reviews, is wouldn't specify restaurants specifically.  If a type of coverage isn't excluded, then obviously it qualifies as valid under the general notability guidelines --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply at cloned AfD; I recommend the closer deal with them as if they were a bundled AfD Pax 20:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.