Talk:SANS Institute

Complaint
No controversy section? This reads somewhat like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.208.150 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Still getting coverage.
There is no question that the SANS institute is noteworthy and this article is needed, but it has some problems, and part of it look like a puff piece. As of this time (12/14/2017 3:31 pm CST) six of the 16 citations are from the SANS own website, not exactly unbiased. The section on Faculty is really a puff piece. I did a Google search on several of the names, and the only claim to fame I could find is being a SANS instructor. Even reading the SANS bios, I could not find anything most of them had done, other than be SANs instructors. 1 is an author of a few books, none of the others are. I am not an experienced Wikipedian, so I hope someone else cleans this up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E7C2:BEF0:F9E9:3EA0:2EE7:5AD8 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * this was this week. If there's a desire to clean up overly promotional language, then please do so, but this is a real organization, does real things, gets mentions and coverage in multiple RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the list of 'fellows' for the reasons previously mentioned. None of these appear to be notable individuals, and this appears to be a backdoor method to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E7C2:BEF0:F9E9:3EA0:2EE7:5AD8 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When you change article content, please do not forget to use the edit summary. Using that helps us regulars distinguish your edits from those of vandals. Thanks! Dawnseeker2000  17:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)