Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MessageLabs

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. John254 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MessageLabs[edit]

Article does not indicate why or how this company is notable. Furthermore, it reads a little bit like an advertisement ("is a leading provider"). Anubis Godfather^T_© 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Asserts notability, easily passes notability standards. It's a stub I never built out. Deletion is NOT how you make an article better. Invalid CSD nom. Lawrence Cohen 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. The sources provided all seem legit; the page just needs a major overhaul. I'll trust the above user to build out the stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Messagelabs is definitely a notable subject, as they are one of the larger providers of this sort of service, but this is not a good start to the article and it is easy to see how it got the chop last time. I have changed "leading provider" or "major provider". --DanielRigal (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite: does not fail WP:V or WP:CORP, but does read like an ad blurb. --Storkk (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry for that. I noticed there was no article on them one day, and just filed it away as a stub for later. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.