Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Yu


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Yu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Lawyer...rose through the ranks....got important jobs....wrote two books. I've searched around and this bare bones is about it. Unreferenced for 4 years and I can see why. Not enough notice from reliable sources and certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many sources available, and three of the first four describe him "legendary," "famous," and "renowned" in Hong Kong legal circles. Thus appears to meet WP:BIO.  The article suffers because it was written under the far more lenient 2004 Wikipedia standards of referencing and hasn't improved since, but I daresay someone obsessive enough to care could turn this into a good or featured article--and that's before we get to the strong likelihood that there exist numerous contemporary newspaper articles about Yu that aren't readily accessible online.  Appears to meet the AUTHOR standard, as well. THF (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This person seems to meet the criteria listed under WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC, but the article does seriously lack reliable sources and references. Perhaps most of the unsourced information in the article should hidden until they can be cited and verified. Tvtr (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.