Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obelysk Funds

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 10:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obelysk Funds

The notability of the subject is not confirmed with independent research. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company controls a number of large Canadian companies, so its claim to manage more than $1 billion in assets in plausible. The company's controlling shareholder and its operating companies probably better known than the Obelysk itself. See this Google search. --Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that Google search is not helpful -- the vast majority of entries do not meet WP notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. I went through all ghits, and couldn't find a single reliable, independent secondary source. Sorry, but this just isn't a notable company. On a general note, private holding companies for private individuals are rarely notable, even if the owner and some of the owned companies are. Arsenikk ^(talk) 01:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP,significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources is found to demonstrate --CHINAwoMAN (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Not sourced in the article (the company web site and a press release to not county, per WP:CORP). Please provide links. Thanks, Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is an open sockpuppetry case involving CHINAwoMAN at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oingoboing69. Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless significant coverage by independent secondary reliable sources is found to demonstrate notability under WP:CORP. Nsk92 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've had no luck in finding any third-party reliable sources. Nothing in Google News, Nothing in Google Books, and Nothing in Google Scholar. Fails WP:N, little potential to satisfy WP:V. Jakew (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to finding no real third party sources I checked several databases (CapitalIQ, Private Equity Intelligence, VentureXpert) I personally can access to see if there is really an argument based on the firm's assets under management that should be made. The firm is not listed as having any institutional private equity funds and I have found nothing to substantiate the $1 billion assets under management claim. Having some experience with the field I have never heard of the firm and would not be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Urbanrenewal (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the claims of notability are not substantiated. While faintly plausible, I would like to see some third party confirmation first. As it is, fails WP:ORG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 1 June 2008 (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.