Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beijing Arbitration Commission


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Beijing Arbitration Commission

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Large number of non-IS sources. WP:TNT candidate, though likely fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations,  and China. UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No valid rationale for deletion. The existence of primary sources is not grounds for deletion. Nor is an old notability tag. Nor is the absence of cites where sources exist.
 * The nominator doesn't even claim that it fails GNG (should probably be WP:NORG) but a quick bit of research shows many sources exist which are entirely about the BAC or its rules. The article currently cites 3 journal articles entirely devoted to the BAC. Here are two more, again, entirely about the BAC:
 * Wang, H. (2011). The Successful Practice of the Concepts and Principles of Modern Commercial Arbitration in China-Take the Amendments of Arbitration Rules of Beijing Arbitration Commission for Example. Transnational Dispute Management (TDM), 8(1).
 * Song Lianbin, Strides towards arbitral justice: a comment on the 2004 arbitration rules of the Beijing Arbitration Commission, Journal of international arbitration, 2004, Vol.21 (5), p.473 (note that Song is a law professor; he's on the arbitrator list of BAC and many other arbitration institutions, but that doesn't make him an employee).
 * There are over 600 hits for "Beijing Arbitration Commission" on Google Scholar alone. I suggest a proper WP:BEFORE search would have prevented the nomination of this article about a well-known arbitral institution. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The notability tag was added by an IP editor with just 16 edits (stopped editing after 20) just after the article was created when it only had 3 cites. I removed it - if the article is kept, that would suggest this tag isn't warranted. Oblivy (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.      <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Beijing Arbitration Commission to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep, obviously notable, and I don't see the TNT argument. But I'd advise the closing admin to check this article against the About pages on the website (https://www.bjac.org.cn/english/index.jsp) to see if anything is directly copied. It's not loading properly for me right now, so I can't. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.