Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasra Hooshmand Engineering Co., P.J.S. (KDI)

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasra Hooshmand Engineering Co., P.J.S. (KDI)

An other editor's DB-CORP got removed but I also believe this Iranian company fails WP:CORP. So I'm bringing it here. The only ref in the article is a publication by the company itself and Google doesn't do much more than confirm the company exists. Can't find anything that makes it a notable corp. Yintaɳ 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yintaɳ. Thank you for your comment. But I believe, you don't have any kind of knowledge about Iranian companies or any other Iranian related subjects. So please stop doing things which you don't have any knowledge about them! Shir-e-Iran (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Shir-e-Iran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm following WP guidelines and policies. I suggest you start doing the same. You've removed the AfD notice from the article twice, you've messed with redirects, and you've even blanked this page twice. I think you're lucky you haven't been blocked. Don't have a go at me if you don't agree with the proposed deletion, just argue your case below. Thanks, Yintaɳ 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an assertion of significance with the AIA membership. However, I don't think that's enough to keep the article around long-term, at least in the absence of independent sources. If independent sources turn up to establish general notability, I'll reconsider. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure I just checked the AIA application form[1]. As far as I can tell anybody can join that organisation, as long as you pay your annual fee (between $800 and $2500). I'm not sure that AIA membership establishes notability. They don't seem to have criteria themselves. Yintaɳ 20:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to say that the people who commented about this Iranian company, don't have a slightest knowledge of Iranian economy and companies. Every technical person in Iran knows KDI, as the company is the only provider of machine vision solutions and one of the few designers of Cleanrooms in the country. Shir-e-Iran (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then demonstrate it. Provide independent reliable sources that show the company gets widespread coverage. Yintan attempted to and found no sources; it was only after he did that that he nominated the article for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe that, if an admin were to check, (note IDENTICAL user pages) they would find that the user (User:Shir-e-Iran) who declined the speedy was actually the same person as the initial author of the article (User:KDICO), with the Shir-e-Iran account being created only after the KDICO account was blocked for having a promotional username. (in other words, he gamed the system, taking advantage of his new username to remove a speedy from an article he created) In addition, I find little proof of notability. As for "lack of knowledge of Iran", I will use the "Time Bandits" defense, and substitute the word "Wikipedia" for the words "digital watches". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered that angle in reviewing the article. However, I felt that the AIA membership was a significant enough assertion of notability that I didn't speedy-delete it on the spot. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Provide a reliable source to establish notability, and I'll happily change my vote. Thank you. Chzz ► 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep I have checked this company out. It seems that, they have done a great job judging by the standards of middle eastern electronic and high-tech developing companies. They are certainly a top company in that region. And if you take a look at Companie of Iran, you will see that almost all of the companies listed in this category have less refrences and reliable sources than this company. So we should delete them all! Besides I couldn't find any other Iranian or middle eastern company which develops machine vision and digital image processing systems neither in google nor in Wikipedia. So lets keep this one and don't delete it. Computer Geek number1 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Computer Geek number1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, a brand new account, and the VERY first edit, 12 minutes after account creation, is to vote KEEP here, with a comment that bears a very strong resemblance to a comment made by the creator of the article in question. Walks like a duck...... Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to prove that you are Sherlock Holmes or what? Grow up and stop acting like childs and only post your comment about the disputed page, not about other users! Thanks. Computer Geek number1 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not Sherlock, but, I do know when to call him in to help with an investigation. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd say back off and assume good faith, but this one seems pretty obvious... don't forget to add WP:SARCASM where appropriate... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I can't find any evidence of notability for this company, and rather than take Computer Geek's word for it (and Geek, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia), I'm going to say delete until I see references from reliable sources (that is, not Google). Drmies (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless these people that pop up after 'checking the company' will tell us where they are finding their info. And if they object to any other company having an article, they can bring that article to Articles for Deletion themselves. Interesting that there isn't a Farsi article on the company - or doesn't seem to be. By the way, the more that new accounts call the more regular editors names and tell them how things should be done (without evidence), the less the notice that we pay to them. You want an article here - you follow the policies here. Simple, isn't it? Peridon (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to complete lack of sources. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

I filed the initial CSD on this article, it was deleted by Ged UK a few hours later, and then it was recreated by KDICO. If the consensus here is delete (as seems likely atm), I suggest that the closing admin consider salting it.
I added the {{spa}} tags above; while I doubt a closing admin won't recognize the !votes for what they are, I figure it can't hurt.
KDICO and Shir-e-Iran have created several redirects to the company. Again, assuming that the consensus is to delete, they need to go as well, so I've included them in the list above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD ends in a delete decision, the redirects will be speedy deletable under criterion G8. Standard procedure when closing with a delete result is to check for redirects and delete them. Since they are not separate articles, I've removed them from the listing at the top of the page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no outside sources to establish any sort of notability. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:11, 27 April 2009 (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.