Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obelisk International


 * 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   no consensus.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Obelisk International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable - upon carrying out due diligence, it appears that there are no reliable third party articles about Obelisk International. This is supported by the improper referencing on the article, whereby none of the references even mention Obelisk International and seem to simply be websites of reputable organisations which either just talk about Brazilian social housing or aren't relevant to the subject at all. In no way do any of them demonstrate Obelisk International's notability. Samstreet133 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 30.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  13:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for all the nominator's obvious COI Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EcoHouse_Group. No evidence of notability in the article, and if there's any news about the company out there, I can't find it. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- If what it says about having provided 1 million homes in Brazil is true, then it ought to be significant. However, that is probably the government programme.  |This page from the company website names five developments lists five developments covering under 3500 appartments (or houses).  This makes it a significant house-builder, but not on an enormous scale.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2013 (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.