Talk:Dazer Laser

Dazer Laser

This article covers a product encompassing novel technology. Anyone contesting this page becasue of that reason should also logically contest the ipod article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod) and many others as well.

Classical examples of articles covering products, technologies, etc..

iphone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphone)

ipad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipad)

taser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser)

Fender Stratocaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratocaster)

--22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Johannesdisilenti (talk)

Your examples above have nothing to do with this article. The argument made by the person who added the tag isn't that this is novel technology unworthy of an article. The tag says that the article is written in a way that looks like blatant advertising. --Onorem♠Dil 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, you may want to review WP:OTHERSTUFF - the argument you are making won't slow down deletion. You need to show it is notable on it's own. GregJackP Boomer! 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

well its written in the same way the examples are... if not please provide examples... --23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannesdisilenti (talk • contribs)

It appears that this product is in a different class (commercial vs military use) than the products covered under the Dazzler_(weapon) article, to which this article was previously redirected. The question I have is: are there other civilian grade products in this category and does that justify a separate article (not necessarily this one dedicated to a specific product) or should the material be incorporated into the Dazzler_(weapon) article. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is ONE example of a ‘specific product’ getting its own unique page, then all other products must be treated the same way; Either everything re-directs to a generic page, or none do- Otherwise an incontrovertible preference has been established. I recognize that there may be many such pages that are “lying around” and that they’d need time to be re-integrated to the generic article, but the short-short version is pick a style and stick with it. FWIW- The neutrality of the overall tone really is questionable; It doesn’t “feel” like advertising, but it does definitely read like someone who’s a “big fan” of the Dazer wrote it.174.25.49.236 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

ok...finally something legitimate...yes there are others... take the Humvee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee)... (UTC)Johannesdisilenti (talk)

it should also be noted that the words "dazer laser" are trademark property of laser energetics... in terms of making it a re-direct... (UTC)Johannesdisilenti (talk)

There is no Wikipedia rule or US Copyright rule that prevents us from using a trademark as a redirect to the generic topic. If you know of one, cut and paste the rule here, otherwise stop bringing up the topic please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm declining the speedy-deletion and converting to an article-for-deletion nomination. I believe the general class of law enforcement grade laser weapons deserves coverage, but not necessarily as a product-specific article. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you for that... i will work on the article so that it is in compliance with standards... (UTC)Johannesdisilenti (talk)