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. Sandstein 09:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Obelisk International

Obelisk International (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

AFAICT none of the sources on this page actually mention this now-defunct company, and I can't find independent sources pertaining to them when they weren't defunct. On referring to the previous AFD it seems only to have escaped owing to simple lack of replies and because I failed to notice (or mention?) that as well as being AFDed by a shill for one of its rivals it was created by a shill. Pinkbeast ( talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: An article on a property investment firm which existed from 2007-14. [1] The text and the sources concern a Brazil government programme in which the firm possibly saw a business opportunity rather than about the firm itself. The Google News link returns some brief coverage and passing mentions while the firm was going about its business (as well as some articles dated well after the company's dissolution which appear to relate to a Russian company of this name), but I see nothing sufficient for the current WP:NCORP requirements. AllyD ( talk) 07:29, 26 March 2019 (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.