Talk:Sniffex

message: I'd love to fix this page to comply to Wikipedia standards.  I can probably supply additional information if it's needed but I don't know how to make the page comply and sorry, but I am not that much "into" Wikipedia to learn all the details at this time.  For those who don't write in wiki's regularly, it's quite daunting.
If someone would like to help, please let me know what information you need either here or by email using maryyugo [at symbol] yahoo [dot] com.  
This article could be important in saving both lives and money.  Sniffex has been tested by several parties and found sorely deficient.  It's an explosive detector which means if it's used and doesn't work, people could be maimed or killed.  I hope someone will be able to help me refine this entry.  
I am not sure why the material is being questioned.  True, as far as I know, no published reports in refereed journals exist as yet.  On the other hand, one of the references is to a set of actual experiments, documented on video, which anyone can see and understand and which were never refuted by the manufacturer.  These videos, involving the president and vice president of the company which sells Sniffex, clearly demonstrate that the device does not detect explosives even when operated by the people who promote it.   Why would something like that not be considered adequate in the light of the complete absence of evidence to the contrary?
Thanks.  Maryyugo 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've look over the article and the sources in it.  I'm afraid I don't see the sources necessary for this to meet the notability rules.  Blog posts just don't cut it.  If reliable sources can be found, then it may merit an article. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no intention of discouraging contributions - I simply don't think this article, as it is now, is suitable for inclusion.  Since you disagree, and an AfD seems excessive (sad to say, there has been considerable media discussion of this nonsense - consult Google's news archive to start), I've flagged the article for cleanup.  Regarding the five-day limit - that is the standard.  You can dispute that if you want, but it was arrived at after long debate and will most likely not be changed. And please sign your posts. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your signing did work properly.  To see what an edit will look like before making it, click 'show preview' at the bottom of the editing window.  Regarding cleanup - that isn't simply a cosmetic matter, so please don't remove the tag.  'Industry experts' is a loaded term here - we need third-party reliable sources to avoid conflicts-of-interest.  You are correct that the newspaper article is an acceptable source.  If it were the only one of its kind, however, it probably wouldn't be enough.  However, Google's News archives contain ~200 articles on this particular nonsense, so that should be sufficient (and I now seem to recall a debunking by James Randi as well). Michaelbusch (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: SNIFFEX, AT NO TIME, has been produced by Homeland Safety International (former SNIFFEX Inc.).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unival (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sniffex is a now debunked, portable explosive detection system produced by Homeland Safety International. 

message: It seems a short mention of each device in that page would be best.  And then delete the individual product pages.  If the list grows they can all be put on their own 'modern dowsing rod' page.Geo8rge (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone in a position to purchase these might do a google search. A blogger or government critic looking at that purchase almost certainly would. We want the proper wikipedia information to come in high in that search, and also have a page name that means the searcher is likely to click on it. If the page that comes up in search is named "Divining Rod - Wikipedia" then the searcher might just think "Oh, hell, google is all messed up, that's not what I'm looking for." Which is why we're kinda fighting an uphill battle against all the re-named and re-re-named devices. A few different device "brand name" pages and ALL the different nomenclatures included on one or more of the pages should eventually do the trick, while we're waiting for the world to get over this little thing called a gullibility and corruption problem. Pär Larsson (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I also point out that each of these devices has its own story. The Sniffex has the financial fraud story plus the debunkings, the ADE651 and GT200 devices have their histories with different foreign governments and the British export ban, and so on. Also I point out that there is a long range locator page with is similar, but somewhat different, in those devices seem to be marketed to a different community.  I have done a little of the work in inserting the cross-references, e.g. maintaining the see-also lists at the bottom of these articles and adding the HEDD1 into the Sniffex article.  But I agree with the orignal post in the sense that it might be helpful to have a list-of article for all the 'modern dowsing rods'. M.boli (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be in the [[Divining rod]] WP apge? 

message: I think each device deserves a page so that it is easily found and a good individual description is provided.  People have already been killed by these fraudulent devices.  They need to be as easily found and read about as is possible. For example, a google search for "sniffex" returns this wiki entry as the **first** listing.  Today anyway.  That's as it should be.  Diluting this information does nobody any good. Maryyugo (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't think so! 

message: :There are ten entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: .
:Trim links and remove maintenance tags.  --  Otr500 (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links