Talk:Dazer Laser

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Dazer Laser[edit]

WP:G11--This article is clearly drafted from the press releas of the company. Furthermore, it claims to have *proved* that their laser does not cause eye damage. Experiments cannot prove a negative. The item is essentially a juiced-up laser pointer. As the article claims, 750 mW! (which = 0.75 W). Such laser pointers can be found on ebay, and this is not a law-enforcement-grade product. It is snake oil.

Real laser weapons systems, under consideration by the US Navy, are either 10 kW (= 10,000 W), or in the 100-200 kW range (= 100,000 - 200,000 W). In such systems, cooling really matters. For laser pointers, it does not. SirHolo (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Company status?[edit]

I was about to add an External Links section to the article, but currently Laser Energetics' home page is broken (returns valid html with Google analytics in the head, but the body is empty).

Other sections such as business segments and about LEI are still functioning. Last press release was 2013.

A partnership agreement with CACI International was reported [1] [2] in 2012. The stock price for LGNT showed a sharp decline in 2013.

It would be useful for the article to note whether the products are still available, and if not when they ceased production.

Pelagic (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dazer Laser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724120911/http://www.king5.com/news/BLINDING-LASER-BEAM-NEWEST-POLICE-TOOL-98973794.html to http://www.king5.com/news/BLINDING-LASER-BEAM-NEWEST-POLICE-TOOL-98973794.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]