Talk:Sniffex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd love to fix this page to comply to Wikipedia standards. I can probably supply additional information if it's needed but I don't know how to make the page comply and sorry, but I am not that much "into" Wikipedia to learn all the details at this time. For those who don't write in wiki's regularly, it's quite daunting.

If someone would like to help, please let me know what information you need either here or by email using maryyugo [at symbol] yahoo [dot] com.

This article could be important in saving both lives and money. Sniffex has been tested by several parties and found sorely deficient. It's an explosive detector which means if it's used and doesn't work, people could be maimed or killed. I hope someone will be able to help me refine this entry.

I am not sure why the material is being questioned. True, as far as I know, no published reports in refereed journals exist as yet. On the other hand, one of the references is to a set of actual experiments, documented on video, which anyone can see and understand and which were never refuted by the manufacturer. These videos, involving the president and vice president of the company which sells Sniffex, clearly demonstrate that the device does not detect explosives even when operated by the people who promote it. Why would something like that not be considered adequate in the light of the complete absence of evidence to the contrary?

Thanks. Maryyugo 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit 6 Oct 2007. Thanks to those who helped reformat the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.129 (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've look over the article and the sources in it. I'm afraid I don't see the sources necessary for this to meet the notability rules. Blog posts just don't cut it. If reliable sources can be found, then it may merit an article. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dallas News isn't a blog. The videos in one of the blogs depict an actual double blind experiment, done with the company's cooperation with the president of the company operating the device, demonstrating that Sniffex doesn't detect explosives. A university and a government report also exist-- I will look for them. A five day warning before deleting a post like this is totally inadequate. You seem to be discouraging contributions to Wikipedia. Not everyone checks their posts regularly.Maryyugo (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryyugo (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of discouraging contributions - I simply don't think this article, as it is now, is suitable for inclusion. Since you disagree, and an AfD seems excessive (sad to say, there has been considerable media discussion of this nonsense - consult Google's news archive to start), I've flagged the article for cleanup. Regarding the five-day limit - that is the standard. You can dispute that if you want, but it was arrived at after long debate and will most likely not be changed. And please sign your posts. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article but it's very difficult for those who don't contribute to wikipedia with regularity to learn all the unique encoding and conventions of the system. In fact, it's extremely annoying to have to use anything much but HTML. Please check those "notability rules" again-- they list mainline newspapers as suitable sources. And the blogs cited are not those of unqualified individuals-- they are those belonging to industry experts. As for signing posts, I clicked on the 4 tildes in the Wiki Markup area below, it seemed to record OK but nothing happened... so I'd be happy to sign if I could. I'll try again: Maryyugo (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your signing did work properly. To see what an edit will look like before making it, click 'show preview' at the bottom of the editing window. Regarding cleanup - that isn't simply a cosmetic matter, so please don't remove the tag. 'Industry experts' is a loaded term here - we need third-party reliable sources to avoid conflicts-of-interest. You are correct that the newspaper article is an acceptable source. If it were the only one of its kind, however, it probably wouldn't be enough. However, Google's News archives contain ~200 articles on this particular nonsense, so that should be sufficient (and I now seem to recall a debunking by James Randi as well). Michaelbusch (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)