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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Investment Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims notability no sources to back up and appears to be a ocnflict of interest or self promotion article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - It is verifiably one of the largest construction companies in Iran (as here), but I'm not immediately able to find English language sources giving it significant coverage. However, per WP:BIAS, foreign language sources can be presumed to exist and per WP:N and WP:BEFORE no deletion should occur until a serious attempt has been made to find such sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your google search doesn't show third party coverage in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it most certainly doesn't, nor was I suggesting it does. I was suggesting it points to links verifying the claim that the company exists, and is of a certain size. One such link is here. Another is here. Given that information, as above, it's reasonable to assume that foreign language sources originating from Iran exist (government tender documents, if nothing else) and that therefore no deletion should take place until serious attempts to locate them have been made. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliable sources are found in Persian, I have to say delete. I don't think simply being the largest construction company equates to automatic notability. does the largest construction company in each country get an automatic article? LibStar (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually. However I was having problems finding sources for the Persian side. Likely this is because Ican't speak persian but I think we have a obligation to remove anything we can't prove conclusively. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree, that's why I say delete in the absence of sources. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You can conclusively prove the existence of the company and its rough size from the sources above, so verifiability isn't an issue. The issue is notability, which is a separate and higher standard. The onus of verifiability is on the person adding content; the onus of notability per WP:BEFORE is on the person seeking its deletion. To argue deletion you are obliged to have made good faith searches for likely sources of significant coverage, and come up empty. Per WP:BIAS and WP:N that includes presumed foreign language sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my comment while implicit wasn't explicit enough. I couldn't find reference before I nominated it. I looked. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you searched Persian language news archives, through, presumably, some kind of Persian-oriented search engine? - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note also that the article is actively under construction and is not obviously vandalism; the AfD may be premature and there may be merit in allowing the creator to continue developing the article before making a final judgement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even possibly the bigger issue is a SPA Promotion account. H.I. Co.= Housing Investment Company Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's almost certainly an conflict of interest account, and it should be closely watched. And the article will probably need to be tidied when they're done, if it survives deletion. But conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however it does add a mitigating factor when I consider it. I understand this isn't the case for everyone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the AfD tag has been missing from the article for five days [1]. I restored it. There are a few reliable sources available in Persian [2] (Google News does not cover Iran I believe, but there are some newspapers among the regular Google Hits). But in its present state this article has absolutely nothing worth keeping ... if we had an article on Bank Maskan (aka Housing Bank, which is one of the major banks of Iran and the parent company of HIC) I'd rather just propose redirecting it there. At the moment I am working on saving another article from AfD, but let me see if I can find the time to start such an article. cab (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90, then redirect to Bank Maskan (which I just started). cab (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyright violation of various pages on the company's web site; see [3], [4], and [5], for example. This company may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but copying the company's web site is not the way to go about writing such an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2010 (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.