Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Beijing Daoxiangcun v. Beijing Sudao Food Industry Co., and Suzhou Daoxiangcun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Daoxiangcun_v._Beijing_Sudao_Food_Industry_Co.,_and_Suzhou_Daoxiangcun
Heya, Not entirely sure where to respond so I have posted same response in various places.

You said: Lacks reliable sources, unfocused and hard to understand, reads almost like a news story. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding:
 * Sources: There is a an External Link at the bottom to the judgment as posted online by the Chinese Court. If a court judgment is insufficient then I don't know what is... BTW google translate does a sufficient job on the Chinese. Also, the sixth tone, whose article is linekd, is a news publication which seems to me to be of a good journalistic standard. Also, caixin, which is like the chinese equivalent of the financial times, is linked.
 * Unfocused: This is relating to an actual case and it has 2 main points. 1) Relates to the injunction and the injunction being lifted. 2) It was considered important in China because of the particular brands involved. While you may not have necessarily heard of them, you can think of them as like McVities (UK) or Twinkies (USA- Perhaps a posh twinkie).
 * Like a news story: I certainly wasn't aiming for advert. Here is an article about a UK case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothew_v_Bristol_%26_West_Building_Society I would say that the writing styles are similar. I outlined the dispute in terms of legal field, i gave some basic background infor re beligerents, i decribed the legal criteria and how the court applied the law. Because of translation issues i have not quoted from judgment but there are external links to it.

I think that whilst the writing style may not be to everyones taste, there is a lack of information on wikipedia re Chinese law compared with the US and UK. Considering the size and economic power of China this is a significant gap in the knowledge contained on wikipedia. Hence even if I am not the best writer/contributor, the knowledge will be of use to someone.

If the article is approved in general I will update, but at this time I am concerned that my efforts will disappear at the stroke of a button. Mithdol (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I retracted my nomination. Happy editing - PrussianOwl (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)