Talk:Arbitration/Archives/2014

Specific "Arbitration institutions" and Spam
With this, User:Rjensen (with the comment "no spam here--this is useful info") reverted a removal by User:Antrocent ( with the comment "Arbitration institutions:  remove section; beachhead for spam") of a somewhat spammy new section, "Arbitration institutions". The source is the very spammy sounding website of William Kirtley, Esq., and the information is about international arbitration, not regular arbitration, which is the main subject of this article. The source seems to have good info, but it's a site who's main purpose is promotion...while providing useful info to attract viewers. Given we already have content much like the restored content, in an existing "beachhead" that directly mentions JAMS and other truly prominent firms, I'm removing this. Should we not allow specific arbitration companies to be listed, but permit a link to a List of arbitration institutions and perhaps a List of international arbitration institutions? Just allow those that have their own article? What's best practice? To start, I'm removing the new content, even though I just improved it with my last edit. Spam bait in multiple sections of the article is a bad thing. Viability_of_lists is just an essay, and doesn't lead me to an answer here. WP:LISTCOMPANY is a relevant sentence in a MOS guideline. WP:SPAMBAIT and WP:OTHERSPAMEXISTS are part of the WP:SPAM guideline. --Elvey(t•c) 18:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)