Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yulchon (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. There is a majority here in favour of keeping, but not sufficient to constitute a decisive consensus. Michig (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yulchon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I reviewed the prior deletion discussion, and all I will say is that it totally ignored notability guidelines. The company is mentioned in passing in one reliable source. That's it. If other sources exist, nobody has added them to the article. If it has high profile employees, it is irrelevant - perhaps said employees are notable, but their notability does not transfer to their workplace, not in the absence of sources. Finally, the unverifiable claim that it is large is nothing but a variation of WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Courtesy ping User:Whpq, User:Aka042 _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One of the six largest firms in Korea, according to the Korea Times. The argument, made by Whqp at the last AfD, that this firm is likely, on account of its size, to have received significant coverage in Korean language sources is perfectly valid and based on WP:NRVE. Nor is there any deadline for the addition of such sources. The article in the Korea Times is not the only source in the article. There is, for example, an article in ALB Legal News. In any event, WP:BEFORE says that it is not sufficient for nominators to look at what the nominator calls the "references, external links, etc." in the article without also looking for sources with a search engine. James500 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We need to be mindful of systemic bias. It is very likely that non-English sources are available. That was my opinion at the previous AFD, and it is still the one I maintain in this second nomination. Thanks for the courtesy ping. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "one of the six largest in Korea" establishes notability. Remember that the purpose of the GNG is to "avoid indiscriminate inclusion", not to exclude subjects that should plainly be covered. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to the closing admin. Please note that this is not a vote, and no proper arguments have been presented. At best, an argument has been made that better sources may exist. Well, perhaps - but such sources need to be presented. Otherwise no article could be deleted, as one could claim that better sources exist for any AfD topic. I have ensured that WikiProject Korea has been notified through Article Alerts feature, and if any of their members finds a better source, they would/will presumably comment. In light of no such comments, I cannot but conclude that better sources do not exist. As for "6th biggest in Korea", there's no "x-largest in Fooland" provision anywhere in Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Just like in the first discussion, we are seeing nothing but an invalid WP:ITSIMPORTANT statements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Your claim that no proper arguments have been presented would hold some water if the editors participating in this discussion offered no sources; that is not the case here. The reality of the English language Wikipedia is that topics that don't receive a lot of English language are under-represented because of editor population. Korean topics will not get as much attention, and I would venture to say that in the area of Korean topics, law firms would lag way behind in editor interest than say K-pop stars. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Whpq: But the editors participating here offered no new sources. Not a single one. If I am missing them, please list them here. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've explained the difficulty in sourcing. And it is my position that the sourcing that is present is sufficient to indicate that more could be found by somebody with the appropriate language ability and desire to dig. It's clear that you don't agree so there's really not much more to discuss at this point, and an admin will make the appropriate determination. -- Whpq (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, as your logic could be used to justify all articles which can be expected to be based primarily on non-English sources. We, however, need to prove that said sources exist - otherwise notability would stop applying to such topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus appears to be missing my policy-based reference to the spirit of the GNG (including a quote from it!). Since we are WP:NOTBURO, it is the spirit of the rule that matters, rather than its mere letter. I would further suggest that Piotrus review the text that WP:ITSIMPORTANT links to, which - by its own terms - allows claims of importance if they are supported "by common sense". That link's purpose is merely to oppose "it's good/bad" comments that have no explanation attached.. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Philosopher Common sense dictates to me that this article is spam. No reliable sources have been presented that deal with the subject outside one or two that do so in passing. It fails our notability guideline, plain and simple. Why would you want to keep it? Because you think it's an important Korean company (ITSIMPORTANT) whose sources exist in Korean (UNPROVEN SPECULATION)? I am sorry, but this is yours (and others) argument as I see it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Piotrus There are two quite good sources in the article which, combined with the fact that the subject clearly merits coverage in the encyclopedia, are more than enough for me. (btw - I note that you are still using ITSIMPORTANT for a principle not remotely supported by that page) Since you are still complaining for sources, I did some quick Google searching on the firm's current and former name (the same searches you presumably did before nominating the article) and found (English search only): – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Global Competition Review thinks the company is important enough to run an article when a new hire is made.
        • Korea Joongang Daily only briefly mentions the firm, but gives objective standards for judging the notability of law firms in Korea (remember that law firms are not the sort of organization that often receives "traditional" media coverage, so such objective criteria are quite relevant).
        • The Legal 500 lists honors won by the firm, including a 13-year listing in the "Top 100 Law Firms in the World" by Global Competition Review and "Employer of Choice" from Asian Legal Business. (This link was to information submitted by Yulchon)
        • A search for Yulchon in The Lawyer brings up 16 results, hidden behind a registration-wall.
        • There's some negative coverate here.
        • Asialaw discussed them in "The Best Law Firms to Work for in Asia-Pacific".

• Keep per reasoning and sources found by Philosopher. Indicates GNG, at least in the legal world. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ADMASQ. ("...employs 310 professionals...", "...One of the nth largest..." puff-blah.) Pax 02:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have edited the article to change "employs 310 professionals" to "employs more than 360 lawyers", with a 3rd-party source. Is that better? Per WP:ADMASQ, we do allow "legitimate articles about commercial entities." – Margin1522 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the article to be kept, we need to know what makes the company notable. "The firm covers corporate, finance, tax, anti-trust, fair trade, dispute resolution, and intellectual property practices" ...in other words they perform the same dry tasks every other legal firm does. Pax 09:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an argument from WP:BORING, which is not a reason to delete an article. Piotrus has a better argument, that sources in Korean don't count until someone actually finds them. But we don't need sources in Korean because we already have enough sources in English to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense, namely that this firm has been written about in enough depth to write an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, they're being boring does not discount them from also being run-of-the-mill. Pax 06:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I have just created an article for Ius Laboris, the international law firm network for employment law. So if that article survives, it will show that this firm is the member for Korea of the world's top-rated network of specialists in employment law. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (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.