Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leopard 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. Consensus is to keep, but I expect NorthAmerica will take responsibility for adding the citations they found  DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Leopard Capital

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Company promo and doubtful is the company is notable at all. Night of the Big Wind talk  14:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Adequately referenced and not excessively promotional. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Concerns about the article's tone can be fixed by simple copy editing.
 * Reuters – Leopard Capital to launch $75 mln Laos, Cambodia fund
 * Reuters – Asia private equity funds line up dollars for Myanmar
 * Bloomberg – Cambodia Draws Interest of Jim Rogers, Private Equity (Update1)
 * The Phnom Penh Post – Leopard Capital allegedly sank seafood firm
 * The Myanmar Times – Leopard Capital touts Myanmar potential
 * Bloomberg (11:27 audio clip) – Leopard’s Clayton On Investing In Frontier Markets: Audio
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This should have been a speedy keep, but clearly it meets GNG and problems can be fixed via editing. Often businesses to prove notability refer to documents showing their existence and investment, this does not equate to advertising. Its actually one of the better business articles we have in terms of sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional note, axe the further reading section almost entirely and cut the investment portfolio down to a bunch of examples and citing of sources and it might fix some of the problem. The article is far from perfect, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted.
 * 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.