Talk:Sandstorm Enterprises

Untitled
I'll improve information on the page.

Sandstorm is notable because it had the first multi-line war dialer, holds the patent on multi-line war dialing. Wikipedia has an article about war dialing, and this is a cross link.

Let's not delete this page
I think that we've done a fair job improving the content of this page so that it now meets Wikipedia standards. 140.247.62.201 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Notability and Unrerenced tags
I removed the Notability and Unreferenced tags because: Simsong 06:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandstorm is notable with all of those patents.
 * There are references at the end of the article.

Worst AfD ever
"I found reviews of their products on BusinessWire" --- funny, that. BusinessWire is a venue for press releases.

The notability of company founders does not confer notability on the company itself; a company is notable when writers in reliable sources verify an assertion of notability.

Patents do not imply notability. Jeepers. Anybody can get a patent (including, for the record, me); they are a simple function of money and time. A patent can itself be notable, and a company commercializing a notable patent can therefore itself be notable (if that commercialization is remarked about in reliable sources), but there are some stupid and terrible patents out there, along with a raft of utterly irrelevant ones.

Coupled with the WP:COI issues with this page, I think we should revisit AfD. Takers?

--- tqbf 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there has to be some references to it to show the notability--it is not self-evident.--there ought to be, besides BWire--there are dozens of relevant reputable trade magazines in this field. DGG (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly object to the notion of sourcing an article with an op-ed written by the founder of the company. Am I off-base there? --- tqbf  20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD will lose :(
This company got written in up 1998 in Wired: here's the article. If anyone is paying attention to the AfD, it'll get a "keep" for this; it's sad, because there's not much notable here.

The cut-down article is at least less puff-y than it was prior.

WP's vulnerability to PR --- even badly orchestrated PR --- from tech companies is a real problem. A topic for a different talk page.

--- tqbf 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)