Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandstorm Enterprises

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandstorm Enterprises

Contested speedy and prod. I'm not sure if it's notable or not hence this afd.. Tawker 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sandstorm is quite notable. Look at the patents and the products. 18.85.19.45 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Improve - I found a few reviews for their products in BusinessWire and a number of network & business security sites. The article needs some heavy reworking, however, to lose its advertisement feel. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- The author and principal of the firm is certainly notable in internet security circles. As such his company seems notable as well. I'd endorse the suggestion for improvement above, though. -- Bpmullins 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Give me more direction on 'reworking' and I'll take care of it. I (James Van Bokkelen) also have some history in the Internet Jbvb 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article needs sourcing, and it needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone. It looks and feels like an advertisement right now. Google has a lot of hits for Sandstorm Enterprises, so sourcing shouldn't be an issue. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing is the primary thing that it needs to be less of an advertisement, but it should probably mention some of Sandstorms competitors and talk more about the comapny's innovations than its products. 140.247.62.201 23:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with option to revisit if notability is not established within one month. Badbilltucker 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.