![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete. |
Why is it so relevant that Jimmy Wales uses or owns this product, relevant enough to mention it in this article? AecisBrievenbus 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There are people on the Internet who derive emotional energy from arguing. From creating a disturbance. From provoking YOU, gentle reader, into doing SOMETHING. When you engage with them to get them to stop, you actually energize them. That's the entire point of the exercise: to get your attention, to waste your time, to try to tweak you in some fashion.
The classic advice for dealing with this actually works wonders: don't feed the trolls.
In a case like this, I would have recommended simply ignoring the article and everything about it for a few weeks or months, and then just PROD'ing it, or just summarily deleting it.
It's unfortunate that they managed to get good people involved and arguing about it, as if this is some deep philosophical issue. It isn't. They want you to think that it is, because they want to see you not just arguing with them, but arguing *with each other* about it.
It's just a stupid little article about a flashlight, and some juvenile people having a go at you. I recommend ignoring them completely for awhile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Can an admin please restore my comment from the deleted talk page? I asked MaxSem (who deleted the page), but have not heard back. Mahalo. --Ali'i 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Who cares if Jimmy uses it or not. It's clearly on its own merits worthy of an article. End of discussion. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am reminded of an article I once read on "Colored bits" discussing the communication problem between computer programmers and lawyers on the subject of DRM and copyright; in which the author described bits colored with "legal" or illegal" were accepted as part of the real everyday world of the lawyer but accepted as obvious nonsense to computer programmers who are trained to view the ones and zeros as necessarily having no "color". Replacing "bad faith" misspelling corrections with good faith spelling corrections and bad faith article creation with good faith article creation is nonsense to me but valid to the wiki-lawyers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto used a SureFire M6 Guardian to light a pivotal desert-crossing night scene in the film Babel. Since it's hard to create fake moonlight on film ("So the challenge became how to light a big night exterior with the light from a single flashlight."), he suggested the M6 because he had heard of the M6's brightness. It played a huge part in him saying, "the effect was scary and kinetic... I was very, very happy with the results, and we didn't need to manipulate the scene at all in the DI." For this movie, he was nominated for the Best Cinematography BAFTA Award, and several other awards. (See the Babel page). More can be read here. Maybe someone can whip up this little bit into something add-worthy. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact, this could be a very reasonable article. Consider the following structure:
1) Technical properties - basically the current content, talking about the high lumens output
then use that as a basis for
2) Applications - this flows into the Cinematographer case above, and the reason it's popular in police work
which then leads to
3) Popular Culture - and here's the logical place for the New York Times pieces.
I don't want to write this myself, as that could be problematic. But objectively, the above seems encyclopedic.
-- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at WP:PRODUCT and I don't see why this article is here, and I don't know why it was recreated after deletion in 2007. Shuoldn't this be merged to the company article (which is also lacking sources and any assertion of notability) ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This article has several sources which indicate its particular notability within its niche regarding lighting - the "American Cinematographer" mention seems especially significant. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)