Talk:Beijing Daoxiangcun v. Beijing Sudao Food Industry Co., and Suzhou Daoxiangcun

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 March 2019. The result of the discussion was keep (Nomination withdrawn).

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

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) 08:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to find more information... I should learn more Chinese...Mithdol (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]