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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

China Law Blog

[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, WP:WEB. Neither has this blog received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, nor does it have any historical significance. To the extent the contributors of the blog might be notable, that, in and of itself, may not be in any way construed as conferring notability to the subject itself (see WP:INHERITWEB). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete relying too much upon achievements of Dan Harris and Steve Dickinson. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2018 (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.