Talk:SureFire M6 Guardian

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete.

Jimmy Wales

Why is it so relevant that Jimmy Wales uses or owns this product, relevant enough to mention it in this article? A ecis^Brievenbus 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article in the New York Times which spends a few paragraphs discussing how he owns it. That's quite enough to establish relevance. -Amarkov moo! 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Isn't that the epitome of a passing mention of an unencyclopedic factoid? Let's extend your logic. Cribs is a notable tv program. Everyone on there is notable. So are we gonna write articles about everything they show on the program? Are we gonna write who are notable owners of a particular car? A particular tv set? A particular microwave? A ecis^Brievenbus 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not my actual logic. If half an NYT article is devoted to a character from Cribs owning something, though, we are gonna write about it. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls

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)[reply]

Ah, but it seems from a time when the word "troll" had more to do with a certain type of humor than bilious malice. C'mon, of all the things that go on between That Hideous Site and Wikipedia, an article that's basically justification for "Jimmy has a really cool flashlight" seems to be no more than some mild kidding around. It's deadpan humor, like the genre of Amazon book reviews that do ponderous pseudoacademic deconstruction of the Family Circus comic strip. I think you should have played along - remember, every minute the trolls devote to writing this article is a minute they aren't doing something more obnoxious. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin request

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)[reply]

Anyone? --Ali'i 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as I can't see anything wrong with it. Hut 8.5 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in the process of restoring it? Because I was under the impression that it was a relatively swift task, and it's still not here. Apologies if it's still on its way. --Ali'i 18:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's in the edit history. Hut 8.5 19:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaahh... Mahalo, Hut 8.5. --Ali'i 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the light---see it?

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)[reply]

I think we all agree on that point. That is to say, I haven't seen any voices to the contrary yet since the current version was created. What the discussion in #Jimmy Wales is about, is whether it is relevant and encyclopedic enough to include it in this article. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeros and ones (bits) colored with "bad faith"

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)[reply]

To be added? (restored)

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)[reply]

I endorse including this in the article, because it's a relevant and notable use of the product. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, despite the fact that the article may originally have been created in bad faith, it's not a controversial topic. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Structure

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)[reply]

"Popular culture"??? Ugh. <shudder> That's just gross. --Ali'i 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this might be an example of one of the good uses of the pop culture sections even without the jimbo impact, since Surefire's and other kinds of high-output flashlights (streamlights, etc.) are ubiquitous now a days, but not everyone knows exactly what the name was. People reading the article would be like "Oh, THAT was what Jack Bauer used in 24!" (note, not an M6). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bauer uses an M6 in 24?!?!? Duuuude... I gotta get one! ;-) I still think that uses like this could be incorporated into the application section (if that's what we wanted to go with). --Ali'i 14:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by nominator :There's a WP:NICHE now? I missed that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]