Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dazer Laser


 * 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  no consensus, default to keep.  Jujutacular  talk 03:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dazer Laser

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was previously created and shortly thereafter redirected to Dazzler (weapon). It has now been expanded as its own article, but has a single-product commercial tone to it. It was nominated for CSD, but I am declining and am changing to a AfD for further discussion. I do not believe it should be retained in its current form, but some information may be salvageable as a law-enforcement grade (as opposed to military grade) product category. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC) a trademark should not be used as a re-direct.... your really dont want to understand that.... also there are plenty of examples that cover xxx products for either military or commercial use.... simple example: Humvee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee).... and of course all the apple products... so if your contesting the way its writted please say specifically how if differes from all these examples... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannesdisilenti (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Wikipedia rule is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It does. If there are disagreements over style and tone, that is for the talk page, not a deletion forum. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia rule that bars trademarks as redirects. There should be a standalone article if there is enough info available on the company and the product, and there is here. I started the entry for Dazer Laser, but got lazy, or maybe dazy and redirected it to the more general concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

i would like to work on the article... but some poeple here just want to delete by compulsion.... its impossible to let the community add material to make a solid article when you have trigger happy poeple reverting to original, deleting and now this... nobody wants to be proactive...

--Johannesdisilenti (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the sources I found were press releases and thereby not reliable sources, with the exception of a Deseret News article about the military dropping the project. Not notable.  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per nom. Şłџğģő  00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Most articles in this category follow equal referencing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannesdisilenti (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor has no edits not connected with Dazer Laser except for ones which, to judge by the edit summary here, may be intended as "vengeance" for the nomination of Dazer Laser for deletion.
 * Keep The volume of references is large enough to support the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.192.224 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete the sources are either press releases or descriptions of a Dazzler (weapon) and not about what makes this specific product notable among that general category of weapon. Also, the article content is mostly non-sensible jargon ("Variable Range and Variable Focus, a patented technology") of the sort used to advertise but not inform. A third-party scientific critique or government report would go a long way to making this seem non-promotional, but I think none exists.  Blue Rasberry  00:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Of the three "keep" comments above, only the one by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) makes any real attempt to address the question of sourcing. He says that the subject of the article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but, having looked at the sources cited, I do not agree. Several of them are not independent sources, others, as Blue Rasberry has suggested, do not relate much to this particular product. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confusing ones used for notability and ones used for verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you understand how Wiki works. A subject must be notable.  You prove notability by using verifiable and reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.  There are not some sources used for notability and others for verifiability.   GregJackP   Boomer!   00:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The first three show notability, the non-independent press releases are used to verify specific details of the product within the article. To point out the press releases and ignore the independent ones, is called the strawman fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The CNET ref is almost a word for word copy of the Seattle TV report, and is not really another source - it even refers back to the Seattle article. There are really just 2 sources, hardly the "multiple" sources required.  The press releases do not serve to verify anything, as the are not reliable, independent sources.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a mathematical genius but last I checked two was still multiple, one is single. You still are confused between notability and verifiability, and I don't think I have the ability to teach you. There is no ban on using press releases to verify a fact, if there is please cut and paste the Wikipedia rule here. The CNET and Live5 are not work for word copies at all, and have two separate authors listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may notice that all biographies of Abraham Lincoln are "almost word for word" copies too, they start with his birth, his law career, the civil war ... and all end with getting shot in the head." Its crazy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the rule banning a press release here is WP:SELFPUBLISH because the company issuing the press release is not currently a recognized expert in the field and may not be notable for anything other than this product, if it is even notable for that. I recognize that different authors are listed in various articles but language such as "puke ray," "No mention is made of tactical possibilities involving mirrors, reflective sunglasses etc," and "Especially if some of that green might be of the kind that Linda Blair offered in "The Exorcist," indicate that the authors have ignorant curiosity about the device, but do not indicate that they have any source of information about it beyond the press release. I am aware also that there is a claim of independent scientific review, but again, for such an extraordinary claim there should exist a statement from a reputable scientific authority and not a hired non-notable organization which communicates exclusively through the press releases of its employer.  Blue Rasberry  04:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Press releases are prohibited per WP:SPS. I also didn't say exact word for word copies, but almost word for word copies, which is also the reason that we don't count news articles that are all based on the same AP item as separate sources for the purpose of coverage in multiple sources. There are only 2 real sources for this article, which does not rise to the level needed to show notability.  GregJackP   Boomer!   07:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is an AP article uses the AP byline. Can you show me the rule where multiple AP articles cannot be used? If you follow the AP feed you would know that the AP feed changes continuously as new facts are found. The AP feed from 10 am is not the same article as the one at 10 pm. The AP feed may contain 50 facts and the New York Times use 20 facts and the Washington Post use 20 facts, with 15 overlapping facts and 5 non-overlapping facts each. Look at the Google AP feed and then look at what different media outlets carry of that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh, that rule reads: "self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Is your argument that the maker of the Dazer Laser is NOT an expert on the Dazer Laser? You appear to be moving your argument from the strawman fallacy to now grabbing at straws. Every article on a product or company uses their own website for verification of facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am stating that the maker of the Dazer Laser is not an expert on the Dazer Laser until established as such by an independent third party, and I see nothing desperate about the claim so please entertain it. Products get removed from Wikipedia despite good documentation in self-published sources because there are no good sources from third parties; this is a common occurrence and this article is not special for being nominated for deletion because of this.  The other sources covering this product are either basing their reports on the press releases or otherwise not supplying to a minimally acceptable extent such information which would make this product notable.  Blue Rasberry  22:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are the one engaging in original research when you say: "the other sources covering this product are either basing their reports on the press releases ..." Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be engaging in speculation. A reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source. That they all contain the same information, well, duh. Unless they are going to invent facts, all the information comes from press releases or the companies PR department repeating what is in the companies press releases. That is is the nature of B-list reporting. And that is the Wikipedia definition of notability, when secondary news outlets take notice. There is no Wikipedia rule that demands an authoritative investigative report from an A-list journalist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are further correct that I am engaging in original research when I made that statement, but this is not the kind of WP:OR which is prohibited. Determination of whether a source meets WP:RS is by nature original research because that is a Wikipedia criteria to be applied by Wikipedia editors.  I feel that you err when you suggest that it is natural that the press release is natural source (or the "duh" source) of information.  The Seattle news source, for example, could have had a police officer say something about the device.  Instead, the entirety of the report is that the company gave a sales pitch to the police department combined with their general press release.  Other sources I might expect are perhaps a comment from a scientist in the field or a government report about regulating or approving this non-civilian weapon.  I already mentioned references above saying that the device is a puke ray and making other jokes.  This is not B-list reporting; this is yellow journalism and satire derived from an ad about a product designed by pseudoscience, and I say this with awareness that I came to that conclusion by OR and that the sources cited are generally reliable.  Reliable sources sometimes publish articles which are less appropriate for citation than others because reporting is for entertainment as well as to give information.  This references says that the device was supposed to sell US $200 million in units by the end of summer 2009; yet there is no source following up on this.  I feel that enough time has passed with no new data to delete this article for now, and if the product really is as extraordinary as the claims, then eventually other sources will arise.
 * There is plenty of room here for us to have the same facts, understand each other, and still reach a different conclusion. You yourself say this is not the best reporting.  Different people have different standards of what should be deleted; see deletionism.  This article's sources currently are below my standards; maybe they are not below yours.  Do we understand each other?  Please correct me if you feel it is not appropriate for me to come to my conclusion in the way that I did.  Blue Rasberry  05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * how do you geniuses explain the creation and sustain of the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_Halting_and_Stimulation_Response_rifle) article.... it has a single bogus article and yet its been there for a long time... this is how you do your mindless job as administrators... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.192.224 (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the current promotional content is annoying and needs to be fixed, this "puke ray" device is notable, whether one wants to call it innovative and humane, or controversial and dangerous.  It's attracted national and worldwide attention recently and in the past,  .  The test is notability, not writing quality. Mandsford 20:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

--Oykucum (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Mandsford that this topic has recieved significant coverage which makes it worthy of an article. Absolutely agree that it needs cosmetic work.


 * Keep In dire need of work though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.15 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources indicate notability. Wording concerns should be rectified by editing.-- Pink Bull  17:13, 3 August 2010 (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.