Singapore Mediation Centre: a before search for sources came up with unreliable sources such as social media etc. or partial matches such as the Singapore Mediation Convention.  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Singapore .  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  Agree that the sources used are Primary.  I find this one [8] , don't think it's enough for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I even used newspapers.com and newspaper-archive.com via the Wikipedia Library and found only partial matches.  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 15:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This is a seminal organisation in the mediation profession of Singapore.  See [9] .  Google scholar also reveals: [10] - SMC is the only centre in Singapore that allows mediations to be recognised by a court order [11] - SMC mentioned as an "important development" in the history of ADR in Singapore [12] - Chapter 2 is about the approach SMC mediators take [13] - talks about SMC, its history and importance [14] - mentions SMC [15] - talks about SMC See also: [16] - SMC develops an ADR process for . sg domains Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] your source 1, singaporelawwatch has Copyright 2023 by Singapore Academy of Law which is the parent organisation thus not independent, 2 and 5 are from the singapore academy of law journal which is published the singapore academy of law, source 3, 6 and 7 are mentions thus not SIGCOV required for notability and your 8 is a brief paragraph.  So in total your sources do not showcase how WP:NORG is met as they are a mix of mentions and non-independent coverage.  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not agree with your analysis of source independence.  See WP:ORGIND and WP:Independent sources .  The fact that SAL is the parent organisation of the SMC does not ipso facto make the SAL Journal dependent on the SMC.  The SAL Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal that is remotely operated from the SMC.  To claim dependence here would be like saying that, since Conde Nast owns both Bon Appetit and The New Yorker, The New Yorker's coverage of BA is always non-independent.  You need to show how the coverage of SMC in the sources you claim are "non-independent" are actually as such; to my mind, they are factual, in themselves show how the SMC is notable, and do not demonstrate any undue attention given.  Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 16:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Some additional input regarding the sources in the discussion would be good.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be enough reference coverage to support notability of the subject: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-contractors-association-unveils-mediation-centre-to-resolve-construction https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/new-mediation-scheme-be-launched-telcos-and-customers-resolve-disputes-1834571 https://globallitigationnews.bakermckenzie.com/2023/04/17/singapore-high-court-enforces-agreement-to-mediate-in-a-multi-tiered-dispute-resolution-clause/ https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-mediation-centre-saw-record-number-of-cases-and-disputed-sums-in-2017 https://www.asianscientist.com/2018/04/features/smu-eunice-chua-mediation/ https://borneobulletin.com.bn/online-session-educates-on-power-of-mediation/ Keep - although some quoted material is primary, overall there is still enough that can be used to support the article in my opinion.  This was just a quick search too, I am sure more searching would yield additional sources.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Assessment of recent sources found would be useful for a closer to see.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a review of the sources presents by Indefensible the first straittimes source is about the Singapore Construction Mediation Centre not the Singapore Mediation Centre and only mentions SMC in passing the todayonline source is about an ADR scheme authorised by the SMC and only mentions the SMC itself in passing the globallitigationnews sources is a bout a high court case and only mentions SMC in passing the second straittimes source is mixed it begins being about the SMC for the first 4 paragraphs but morphs into a general piece about the rise of acceptance of mediation in Singapore in general.  the asianscientist piece is an interview with prof Eunice Chua and only mentions SMC the borneobulletin piece is a short article on an event hosted by the BDAC in collaboration with SMC and mentions that they were collaborating and that SMC's principal trainer was a guest speaker.  so in total the sources presented are yet again more mentions of SMC which don't count towards notability.  the second straittimes sources would count towards notability if there was more WP:SIGCOV , passing mentions fail SIGCOV required for WP:GNG and WP:NORG .  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding the 1st ref: "More than 4,000 matters of various kinds have been mediated at SMC since it was established in 1997. Construction disputes make up about 40 per cent of the cases each year."  That seems fairly significant in my opinion.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that is not what is meant by WP:SIGCOV , that sentence counts as a mention.  Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you have to interpret what the mention is saying, not just count the number of words.  Anyway, that was just regarding the 1st ref, have to review the rest again.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The sources listed above are enough to meet WP:GNG .  Given the location, I think it likely that coverage in non-English sources could be significant, but it's unnecessary to search as there's enough in these English-language sources to meet WP:GNG Jacona ( talk ) 17:46, 22 August 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: keep