National Arbitration and Mediation: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 22 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Business , Companies ,  and New York .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am not finding much coverage within the reach of publicly accessible Google Search.  I can't really comment on notability.  It is a group within a specialized field.  Graywalls ( talk ) 00:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Leaning towards keep on WP:IAR grounds, as this is a somewhat important arbitration institution, not as big as JAMS but certainly known in arbitration circles.   But very hard to find sources partly because its name is pretty generic (for example, FINRA has national arbitration and mediation rules).   Some sources about subsidiary ClickNSettle that mention NAM: William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Two Roads Diverged: A Tale of Technology and Alternative Dispute Resolution Dispute Resolution [38] - about a page "Law and technology: what does the future hold for ADR?" [2001] ANZRIArbMedr 27; (2001) 20(3) The Arbitrator & Mediator 1 [39] a paragraph on page 19 Online Dispute Resolution: Global Issues and Australian Standards" [2002] ANZRIArbMedr 20; (2002) 21(2) The Arbitrator & Mediator 21 [40] about a paragraph, similar to the Law & Tech article Oblivy ( talk ) 06:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on grounds of WP:IAR . I didn't vote earlier as I was hoping to see greater discussion. There is little rationale for deletion beyond strict application of WP:GNG which would not make sense given the pervasiveness of NAM clauses and their real-world notability. This is the kind of situation IAR was designed for. I could see a rationale for merging this article with other private arbitral institutions such as: American Arbitration Association not well sourced Forum (alternative dispute resolution) has proper sourcing because they do credit card disputes which puts them in some disrepute. JAMS (organization) looks like it has good sourcing but when you drill down some of those articles are about NAF and others talk about them in limited context, not enough for an article Ultimately arbitration doesn't generate a lot of headlines because it's confidential, but that makes it valuable to have Wikipedia articles so people can get some level of understanding of what they are. Oblivy ( talk ) 07:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Oblivy -- Imo this is a lazy nomination where a user with less than 300 edits would rather twinkle tag AFD than rewrite or improve the article. NPOV copy issues aren't always grounds for deletion, and the references combined with public status demonstrate notability. Perhaps the  editor could make edits to portion of article he believes fail NPOV Cray04 ( talk ) 01:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Insults seem unnecessary RetroCosmos ( talk ) 09:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NPOV is not a reason to delete. It is no insult, merely my opinion. As progressive as wikipedia can be, there is a very militant-esque culture of upholding standards and, critiques and feedback are necessary. There was no insult here. Cray04 ( talk ) 06:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] difficult to believe that first sentence was anything but RetroCosmos ( talk ) 07:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* .  "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject .  I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  I'm unable to locate a single source that comes close to meeting GNG/NCORP criteria, I've looked for analyst reports or any kind of neutral third party articles and I'm unable to locate a single one.  Invoking IAR is inappropriate at AfD in circumstances where no arguments have been put forward to justify ignoring the community's guidelines.  I'm also not convinced a redirect is appropriate, none of the suggestions appear to be connected with the topic company.  A better alternative might be Arbitration in the United States but I'm also unsure if this is connected to the topic company.  HighKing ++ 11:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting point, allthough arbitrators (and the sanctioned companies providing them) are a major part of that process, and this company does seem have some notability.  Cray04 ( talk ) 07:01, 20 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete