Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Ledlenser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Article issues; no response from nominator

Ledlenser

LedLenser's T7M Tactical Flashlight
LedLenser's T7M Tactical Flashlight
  • ... that Ledlenser developed the first commercially available LED flashlight? Source: "Fineartmultiple Art Magazine - Why Has a Pack of Wolves Descended on Berlin?". fineartmultiple.com. "The artist behind the project, Rainer Opolka, was a highly successful inventor who alongside his twin brother made a fortune from developing power saving technologies such as the first commercially available LED torch"
    • ALT1:... that Ledlenser are an official partner with Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) in 2020? Source: Hardisty, Carin., Ledlenser helps Doctors without Borders, Sports Trader, March 31, 2020.

Created by Arthur Sparknottle (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC).

  • A brand-new article from a brand-new editor, who, despite his “newness”, and his rather narrow focus, knew just how to submit this. Qwirkle (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Concurred with Qwirkle. The article doesn't meet WP:NPOV, and hooks are of dubious verifiability in their own right. Hportfacts5 (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Who did invent the first LED flashlight then, clever clogs? That's an interesting fact people should know. Why are you trying to hide it? You need to read WP:ABF too. What sources are unreliable? Why isn't the German verson tagged with NPOV if your claim is true? [1] It's almost exactly the same! Are there actually any English speaking editors out there that make good faith edits or explain anything clearly? I despair! This place is disgraceful. An enyclcopedia nasty! Arthur Sparknottle (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I would like to undertake a second review. The article is new enough and long enough. Numerous paragraphs are uncited, which does not meet Rule D2. The references should be better formatted so we see sources and dates. Images are freely licensed.
  • It's unclear to me why a factual accuracy tag has been appended without any corresponding explanation on the talk page. I do not read German so as to check the corresponding German Wikipedia page (maybe Gerda Arendt can help here) but the article seems like a pretty straightforward company write-up. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Yoninah (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The first commercially available LED flashlights were made in the 1970s, possibly before the principals of this company were born. In the beginning, of course, they were either very weak or very expensive, and you could have any color of light as long as it was red, but that changed steadily over time. For a bright white flashlight with low power draw, HDS beat these guys handily.
    As a glance at the article will show, it it sourced to commercial press realeases for the company founders new, unrelated project, bad public art. Qwirkle (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have no time. I know German but not the technologies. This is a translation of an article that comes in several languages. I'll remove the tags. Please say precisely what seems factually disputed for a fact or paragraph, not the whole thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    Restoring the comment I removed by mistake. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    I looked a bit closer now. Arthur, I find indeed that the article is rather closely modeled after the German, which is no problem, but also means it is not better sourced than the German, which is a problem. (Look at several other nomination and articles - on different topics - with the same problem.) For the English Wikipedia, we need independent reliable sources (WP:RS), and for DYK, we need them even more, and for all paragraphs. The company's website and press releases are NOT independent, and can only be used as external references. Arthur, are you willing to find independent references? - IF you are, please also find a hook that doesn't include "first", which is always hard to prove. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT0 should be struck out because it is provably wrong. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Can a new hook be proposed here? ALT1 sounds promotional. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    ?? medical help without borders, - shouldn't we "promote" that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I meant it sounds like an advertisement. Kind of the same things as, for example "Our group is sponsored by ACME Corporation". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"being sponsored" is different from "participating in a humanitarian project", for me at least. Having said that, what we need first is an article based on reliable sources, and we so far from it that hook criticism seems a waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
A suggestion, from someone who is obviously a bit apart from the whole spirit of a mandatory, daily, DYK: any newly created article with a strong commercial, political....well, anything with a strong POv attached...really isn’t the best fit for DYK. Wiki is practically inviting NPOV and COI problems by encouraging this. Qwirkle (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, since the nominator hasn't edited Wikipedia since September 29, unless someone else adopts it, we're going to have to close this nomination as stale. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)