Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Young-chul (lawyer)

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. Sandstein 07:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Young-chul (lawyer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable lawyer. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abishe (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Korean article contains many more sources and a spread of focus much broader than the Samsung slush fund case. I'm on the fence about whether any establish his independent notability, as they still focus primarily on legal difficulties and short career announcements (that arguably would not be noticed if not for his tenure at Samsung during the era leading up to restructuring), but I wanted to point others to them for review. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (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.