Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SureFire M6 Guardian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, as evidenced by[1]. Anyone is welcome to recreate this page in good faith without stalking Jimbo, but serving as Brandt's proxy is unacceptable. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SureFire M6 Guardian

SureFire M6 Guardian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The item is not notable. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as an advert for a trivial household item ➥the Epopt (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Arguably, the best, but certainly one of the most expensive flashlights in the world. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as the article fails to establish notability. Jimmy Wales may own a toaster, too, but it doesn't suddenly gain notability because of that ownership (even on wikipedia). Epthorn (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it has sources! Gentleness · Talk 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's seemingly not a "trivial household item", or at least only as much as that cars are not trivial garage items. Though I do think the reference to Jimmy is ill-judged. James F. (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep None of the sources work. The item is listed on the company article with as much detail as this page. The section labled as Controversy has no references and seems to be the only justification in having its own page. Gtstricky (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial topic, and the fact that there are three sources loses a lot of weight when you realize that one of them is the company website, and the other two are both refs for the fact that Jimbo owns one. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If two seperate news articles discuss how a rather notable figure owns a specific flashlight, it's notable enough. We're too sensitive about things that involve Jimbo in any way. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - References assert notability. Plus, Jimmy owns one! :D Maser (Talk!) 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's notable, it is the most powerful flashlight made by a notable company and a notable person uses it. There are also far less notable gadgets with articles in Category:Electronics stubs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Notable. Ripberger (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - seems hardly encyclopedic. It's not exactly a groundbreaking new product or anything - Alison ❤ 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: how does the fact that Jimmy Wales owns a product make it notable enough for Wikipedia? Are we gonna do the same for his car, his microwave, his shirts, his shoes, the supermarket he goes to, etcetera? Yes, being the most powerful flashlight on the market might make this notable. But being used by Jimmy Wales certainly doesn't make this notable. AecisBrievenbus 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, of course being used by Jimbo doesn't make this notable. What does make it notable is two articles largely focused on this flashlight and his ownership of it. If his microwave gets the same level of coverage, that will be notable too. -Amarkov moo! 03:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No, because one of the main criteria of WP:N is that of "significant coverage". This is the prime example of a passing mention of an unencyclopedic factoid. The fact that Jimmy Wales owns one is just as much trivia as the fact that Chuck Norris, Nelly, Tony Blair or any other notable person would own one. Notability is not inherited. AecisBrievenbus 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The item is notable. Keep per Amarkov and everyking. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jimbo's speech in NYT. Discombobulator (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry for the tardiness. I have been unable to vote until now because the the Epopt banned me unnecessarily. Duck of Luke (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for all of the reasons stated above. Buncombe83 (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to SureFire. It's not much of an article, and the coverage is not exactly analytical. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Daniel Brandt at Wikipedia Review encouraged the creation of this article, if anyone is interested as to why this was created. (JzG, I'm not trolling. I have no association with the website except that I found that thread and that the article had been created and was up for AfD. It seemed potentially relevant why the article was created.) —75.60.171.158 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to SureFire as a one-liner. With the best will in the world, take out the cruft and it's thin. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (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.