Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitong Law Firm


 * 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. Snow keep. Additional sourcing has been found establishing the subject's notability. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yitong Law Firm

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD : Non notable law firm, lacks real significant coverage in reliable sources, some mentions. Article is more about the actions of one guy than the firm. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Mt  king  (edits)  21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement on my talk page that "some editors" are discussing the removal of this page, it seems you are the only one who has taken any interest in it, and not in an editorial way, rather only a deletionist way. It further seems you have not read the text of the links, which describe what has been the fallout of these individuals (not just Li, btw) and the impact the closure of their firm has had. The importance of withstanding official intimidation from the Chinese government also needs to be taken into account. When I have more time (not this moment) I will add further description and sourcing if that will make you back off.--Brad Patrick (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Topic is passing WP:GNG, per articles: The Telegraph, NYT, CS Monitor. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Northamerica1000. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, sufficient coverage in secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt and User:Bearian/Standards. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources has been found. Nominator should follow WP:BEFORE and take a moment to check the Google news archive search before nominating this.  Ample results, Northamerica1000 already mentioning some good ones.   D r e a m Focus  23:35, 20 November 2011 (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.