Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hughes-Castell


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hughes-Castell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Article created by single-purpose account for promotional purposes, in contravention of our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hughes-Castell is the first international legal recruitment agency in Hong Kong which made contributions to local & regional legal industry. When I read the first issue of The LawList 1988 (co-published by the Law Society of Hong Kong and Hughes-Castell) in the library, I believe it is worth to write an article on Hughes-Castell. It is quite interesting from being a London-centric company to an European-acquired international agency and from an international company to become a regional focus recruiter. In addition, not many wholly foreign owed legal recruiters (no more than 5) are allowed in PRC. These companies bolster legal industry inside China. I need times to add the LawList, Hughes-Castell’s history and the relationship between Hughes-Castell and the regional legal industry. Please keep it.WWY1941 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: User:WWY1941, the article creator, is a single-purpose account with probable undeclared conflict of interest. Please review our policies at WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI. Citobun (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply.I didn't create or edit for promoting or advertising purpose. I didn't get any interest for positing the articles (maybe you don't believe). Indeed, how can you get paid for creating/editing a wiki article as Wiki is a open source? I wrote 4 articles (2 in English and 2 in Traditional Chinese) for personal interest plus I want to practice my skills. Until now, I only chose the companies which they were the first in the category in particular area or the person who has been unforgotten but with huge contributions to particular group of people in society. WWY1941 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing the notability here.  The article's references are largely self-references, either via its web site, a press release or two interviews with the company's owner.  The other sources report routine matters and minor industry awards.  There's nothing here that speaks to encyclopedic notability.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Insignificant recruiting company with no reliable sources.&mdash; CycloneIsaac ( Talk ) 03:26, 15 December 2016 (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.