Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Capital

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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Capital

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

Non-notable company. Sources are either are PRIMARY, dead links, or only serve to prove the company exists. Google search shows similar results. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons given. Article does not provide/prove notability. Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources in the article may not be very good, but there seem to be a lot of articles on the web about the company doing business.

[1] Investing In Vietnam With Dragon Capital's Bill Stoops - Forbes
[2] Dragon Capital Invests in Philippine Geothermal Developer - Bloomberg Business
[3] Dragon Capital marks 20th anniversary | Corporate News, Latest Business
[4] Dragon Capital to merge portfolios - Economy - VietNam News
[5] Dragon Capital targets wealth managers with Vietnam fund | News | Fundweb
[6] Dragon Capital launches first actively managed Vietnam Equity UCITS Fund | Wealth Adviser

According to the first one, it's the largest private shareholder of stocks in Vietnam. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep I agree with Margin1522, references from forbes, bloomberg does makes subject marginally pass notability. Will be surprised if this page is deleted.Ireneshih (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Margin1522's refs. Earflaps (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odd, my WP:BEFORE search came back with a number of sources in addition to the ones mentioned by Margin1522. Several from Bloomberg. It should be noted the company is known mostly as "Dragon Capital" and also has at least two subsidiaries. I agree the article has sourcing issues and presents in a promo tone, but those are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. I would encourage the nominate to re-evaluate this AFD after they do a more in-depth WP:SET. Mkdw ^talk 21:56, 15 March 2015 (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.