Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardis Technology Park


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardis Technology Park

 * – ( View AfD View log )

pure unadulterated spam Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Keep This user is trying to vandalize topics edited by me after taking things personally, as such this is pure vandalism. and should be speedy kept according to WP:DENY. for more information please refer to Articles for deletion/Iran Software & Hardware Co. (NOSA).

On the note of credibility and importance I share with you 1 very credible link for now, if you need more just search google. this is the link to United Nations Industrial Development Organization regarding the park in question. Thanks, and Wuhwuzdat, lets be adults eh.  Rmzadeh  ►  19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Vandalism? I suggest you study the term! Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's what they call it, more information here Harassment  Rmzadeh  ►  20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Brusque as Wuhwuzdat can be at times, I don't see any evidence that his nomination is in bad faith. If he checked your edit history and to see if other article you were involved with met the guidelines, that's something that lots of other editors do regularly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * very well, just clicking on the news link above, I found the following links to business week article, msnbc article, bbc, and... in the case that he is really not doing this as a personal attack, I would highly recommend him to do a little digging before nominating article, it is not too good to be trigger happy, people spend hours writing these things. I will work on improving it, Thanks   Rmzadeh  ►  21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it were "pure unadulterated spam", then criterion for speedy deletion G11 would have applied. It doesn't, IMHO. Now, the article needs major cleanup and some more sources, but I'm not convinced that the article can't be saved. Had this article been tagged for maintenance for a while, I'd have been more likely to !vote to delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems a bit promotional in places (and I've removed some nonsense about Charlie Sheen), but I certainly wouldn't call it "pure unadulterated spam". Technology parks like this often seem to be considered notable, though it could do with a few more sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This source alone is example enough of the information that could be added to the article. Clearly a notable place. Silver  seren C 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: no valid criteria raised that couldn't have been addressed with a G11 tag. It needs cleanup but it's far from "pure unadulterated spam."  elektrik SHOOS  04:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue.  elektrik SHOOS  04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be a major government project according to Business Week   D r e a m Focus  08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are certainly assertions of broader notability, nullifying the nominator's reasoning of "pure unadulterated spam". Kansan (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable now, and being improved during this discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;There are independent news stories from reliable sources about this park. I added a couple of cites.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK#2. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.