Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UE Boom


 * 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. Consensus to keep following relisting The Bushranger One ping only 19:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

UE Boom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 22:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Commercial puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment I have based the article on HTC One (GA article). You may see some similarities in the way the two articles look, and some phrases I have adopted: "HTC One was praised for the quality of its industrial design,.." Please note, that I have also included a section "Critique" in which I have summarized all available cons I could find in the reliable sources. And, there are articles about bluetooth speakers, such as Bose_SoundLink. The UE Boom article will have to be linked to List of Logitech products.Dmatteng (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Dmatteng (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. The Banner talk 17:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any COI in this matter? Xxanthippe(talk) 01:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
 * None. You can observe that I have included Critique section and also named SoundLink as a speaker that got better sound quality than UE Boom according to the reliable sources. Dmatteng (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  Rewrite or redirect/merge to "Ultimate Ears"  - Since this is a product of Logitech, the article title should at a minimum, be rewritten or redirected as such. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * UE stands for "Ultimate Ears". I think the device deserves it's own article as there are enough references and information. I would propose that rewriting/changing is a better approach. Please let me know what words/sentences look like puffery and I would be glad to submit another version. However, if consensus would be to meanwhile merge it, I would support it. Dmatteng (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment #2 I have also written in the tech section that the battery life is 8-10 hours. That is the lowest number I could find among all of the reviews (I have read 10 of them.) It's highly unlikely that if my desire would be to advertise, I would put this number undermining manufacturer's 15 hours claim, and to write it next to it.
 * In addition, I have written that SoundLink's audio is better than UE Boom's per the reliable sources. I think I wouldn't write it would my desire be to advertise.
 * I believe I have summarized the reliable sources per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Dmatteng (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And still you sound like a marketeer fighting for his corporate toy. The Banner talk 13:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No one in his mind would state the lowest possibly battery life from among the reviews and advertise his competitor's speaker as a better sounding, if advertising was his intention. It does make sense if one was summarizing the sources per NPOV.
 * As I have said, I believe you have started AfD in a way that contradicts WP:Guide to deletion - "Before nominating a recently created article.. sharing your reservations with the article creator ..instead of bringing the article to AfD." Dmatteng (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is the way you defend the article (including policy waving and canvassing) that gives me the idea that you are a marketeer. The Banner talk 20:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment to the closing admin. Please consider to see this nomination as frivolous. (And the nominator is currently blocked for disruptive behavior.) The guideline to deletion clearly states that if the potential nominator thinks an article is advertisement he should either be bold and edit or use cleanup tag. I'll be also contacting an experienced editor(s) to ensure that the article is NPOV and try to develop it towards GA. Dmatteng (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep and clean up. The article as it stands now is not ideally formatted, and does sound somewhat promotional, but the product is notable (has won awards and had multiple independent reviews). AFD is not cleanup. Simply "advertising" shouldn't be a rationale for deletion unless the article needs to be completely rewritten, or unless it is copied from a copyrighted website. -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 14:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, comments like "you sound like a marketeer fighting for his corporate toy" are not very civil.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 15:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The product has received significant coverage in multiple notable publications, and the article is not so blatantly promotional as to be considered unsalvageable. Far from it.  (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2014 (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.