Talk:Ledlenser

Did you know nomination

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

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

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)

• Marking for closure per above. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy?

I think we have had enough inaccuracies of the front page for a bit.... Qwirkle (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Then I am sure you will be able to clearly detail any such inaccuracies instead of making cryptic comments, maintenance tagging without giving valid reason and assuming bad faith WP:APF? Also making up stuff about single purpose accounts when you can check my history to find more than one. Arthur Sparknottle (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Gentle Reader, check his contributions: nothing but this article, and some desultory attempts at borderline libel on a single other subject. Sprung into existence fully finished, like a low-rent Botticelli, this editor of two and one half month’s standing wishes his corporate hagiography to be on the main page.

A bad idea on so many levels. Qwirkle (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you didn't bother reading WP:APF or clearly explain your bad faith edits. This conversation remains a bit pointless until you do. How about going and tagging the German version and personally attacking and insulting the editors who created that, because it didn't just "spring into existence" and is almost exactly the same? [2] Perhaps the moderators there will deal with this atrocious behaviour that drags the encyclopedia into disrepute. Arthur Sparknottle (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You two please stop it, both. Quirkle, please mark disputed facts, not a whole article. The article doesn't read like advertisement to me, nor Yoninah, please remove that tag altogether. You seem not to know WP:BRD (or would not revert back. - I have zero time, travel. Will look deeper, perhaps tomorrow. - I gave this a header to clearly separate from the DYK review. Feel free to change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

To begin with, it is trivial to find earlier earlier examples of LED flashlights...and indeed, the nomination template transcluded mentioned this explicitly, @Gerda Arendt:, until you removed it here. Arc, whose wiki article has, oddly enough, recently been deleted, might be another contender. Qwirkle (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

ALT0 should be struck out because it is provably wrong.

@Binksternet:, is there any place on this mess to discuss technological facts that are, as you wrote, clearly wrong? Several projects would do a good job about specific topic areas - military, aircraft and so forth, and others, like this, tie into so many subject areas that it is difficult to keep “alternative facts” in place, but more ordinary technology? Can’t see a place for it. Qwirkle (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You are perhaps suggesting a list article? I think you would have to have a few strong list sources before you start, or you would be violating WP:SYNTH. Sources that list false product claims.

Or maybe you are not talking about a page in mainspace, but in Wikipedia space? Something in the nature of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? An interesting suggestion, either way. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, or even along the lines of the hoax list’s talk page. There doesn’t really seem to be any focal point for simple misinformation, as opposed to hoaxes and disinformation.

Here’s a pretty good example of how stuff gets caught, anyone who worked with electronic displays, with fiber optics data transmission, and so forth would readily see the “fact” advanced above as false, and we got a lotta geeks around here. But you can literally get a claim that mops were invented in the twentieth century on wiki. Qwirkle (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)