Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMLC Group

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. Consensus among uninvolved editors seems to be that the coverage provided constitute passing mentions rather than significant coverage, as required by the relevant notability guideline. ~ mazca ^talk 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMLC Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weak notability, at best, spammy. PROD'ed but IP editor with edits to no other article removed nom and issue tags. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think notability is proven here. There are some quotes by employees in various reliable sources, however according to WP:RS that does not constitute significant coverage. -Addionne (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I ran a google search and found around one hundred entries from objective sources referring to this company, including news items from major publications not just the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comment about this being spammy is laughable. If you do proper searches you will see this firm is major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchronson (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Author of the article. Nakon 02:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though this may not be relevant to the USA as much as Jones Day or other firms, it is clearly notable I'd those links and google search results are real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicbankerc (talk • contribs) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. Nakon 02:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - CU-identified sock of article author Mitchronson. Looie496 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.69.153 (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Addionne. Nakon 02:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I would also advise the editor(s) giving "keep" opinions above that those comments can only reflect badly on the MMLC Group. Who would engage a law firm whose representatives can't make a coherent evidence-based argument? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (only one !vote each please) See: http://au.legalbusinessonline.com/contents/law-firms/41260/3/details.aspx and http://www.complianceweek.com/article/5748/china-whets-its-enforcement-appetite and http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/4/3/213.abstract and http://business.highbeam.com/articles/435489/managing-intellectual-property/november-2004 and http://business.highbeam.com/435489/article-1G1-126014405/mmlc-group-chinabased-legal-advisory-group-hired-courtney and http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/335405/extorted_companies_silent_stolen_data_/ - notability is clearly established. Phil Bridger - Wikipedia can not be accessed in China, so I doubt that they can see any of this - further, I can't imagine they would prepare for a Wikipedia entry like they would an international patent infringement case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ (once again, only one !vote each) In addition, see http://www.marketinglegal.com.br/mkt/files/20070419_ARK_China_Conference_2007.pdf and http://www.shb.com/newsevents/2009/UnitedStatesChapter.pdf and http://blog.dacare-group.com/index.php/all?blog=1&cat=25&page=1&paged=8 and http://www.legal500.com/firms/30085/offices/31883 and http://www.glgroup.com/Council-Member/Matthew-Murphy-73188.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Also see http://www.amazon.com/Practices-International-Business-Transactions-China/dp/0314199403 and http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/general/IP%20_contacts_China.pdf and http://www.jurispub.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=7936 and http://www.chinalawandpractice.com/SearchResults.aspx?Keywords=office%2Bopening&PageMove=0 and http://www.sha.britcham.org/sh/events/details1.php?id=416 and http://www.itechlaw.org/vegas2008/mmurphy.html and http://www.c5-online.com/regulatory_compliance/ChinaImport/agenda.htm and http://www.c5-online.com/regulatory_compliance/ChinaImport/agenda.htm and http://www.itechlaw.org/boston2010/itl_boston_brochure_web.pdf and www.cafte.gov.cn/other/20041229/.../P020030910428107031247.xls and http://www.chinastudies.unimelb.edu.au/conferences/2009/assets/pdf/China-Conference-Abstracts.pdf and http://www.dgri.de/dateien/anhaenge/akt_070703_programm.pdf and http://global.korcham.net/File/International/Board01/기업정책이슈3_주요국가의경쟁정책동향과대응방안.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Also see http://www.strategy-business.com/media/file/leading_ideas-20070703.pdf and http://guadua.org/news/tags/Australia and http://www.internationallawoffice.com/NewsArchive/Detail.aspx?g=1bc7b417-2f61-4ed6-9d6a-a4c9e3d927ee and http://asia.legalbusinessonline.com/news/breaking-news/prc-law-firm-opens-australian-office/29963 and http://hetii.com/cn/library/news_info_view.asp?news_id=394 and http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/default.asp?Page=12&OB=D&Catalog=ITR&DatePeriod=0&SearchStr=MMLC&x=7&y=9 and http://www.ibls.es/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2192 and http://wenku.baidu.com/view/1ddfcaa20029bd64783e2c08.html and www.bullivant.com/getFile.aspx?file=6225 and http://www.acc.com/chapters/china/legalresources.cfm .... there are literally hundreds of references to this firm online, from hundreds of independent objective sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established above, but article needs substantial reworking to make more Wikipediaish. --BenOneHundred (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- CU-identified sock of article author Mitchronson. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, significant coverage from WP:RS does not appear to exist. Blatant sockpuppetry in this AfD only undermines any presumption of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak stubify and keep. Meets WP:ORG just barely, though the article itself is a spammy mess. I wouldn't see a great injustice if it were deleted, though. THF (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is passing mentions and such. Can anyone find a source that discusses the company in depth? Article is spammy. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.