Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King & Wood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Fram (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King & Wood

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/King & Wood
King & Wood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It does not meet WP:CORP guidelines. It has been speedy deleted twice, so I bring it up here for good. It has now some sources, they still do not meet the guidelines. The link to CNN interview of Art of Life is a trivial mentioning of the company. Dekisugi (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Only reason I would see to keep would be that they're the largest in China, but if that's unsubstantiated, then delete. Corpx (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This company is stated to be the largest law firm in China... the largest country in the world. The PetroChina deal they worked on was also record breaking. I think its important enough. InAnns (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    — InAnns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I think this is notable enough, the company's work has clearly had an economic impact. The Beijing olympic are a catalyst for social change in China, the company is playing a role in it. Icerman (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    — Icerman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - I found something wrong in the article. The editor forgot to put {{reflist}} or <references/> command. I put it there so references are shown up now. However, all links that can be verified there describe PetroChina, not the subject in question. Therefore I still stand by my delete opinion though references are now provided. Dekisugi (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I went ahead and did some searching but could not find any reliable or significant coverage of this firm and as such feel that it fails WP:CORP. SorryGuy  Talk  02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Promotional article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thank you all for your advice on how I can improve the entry I made. As a first time writer on Wikipedia I am trying to learn what makes a good post. I have made (what I feel) are some improvements, and would appreciate your feedback. Any suggestion of how it can be improved are much appreciated.
  • Comment The firm's real name is actually King & Wood PRC LAWYERS. A google search of such shows reveals a lot of information. dunx209 11:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    — dunx209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.90 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I found something is strange with the keep voters. I suspect they are the same user (sockpuppets). The last comment given by InAnn a.k.a dunx209 was written by ChinaLaw, see [1]. Dekisugi (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I reverted this keep vote from a user because it broke the template, but for what it's worth, that vote was their only contribution. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (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.