Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMS (alternative dispute resolution)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

JAMS (alternative dispute resolution)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company, as per WP:NCORP D  P  21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article meets WP:NCORP. While the article certainly needs a lot of work, it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.  In the report from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, JAMS was noted to be one of the two "leading consumer arbitration administrators", and the report discussed JAMS fairly frequently throughout the report.  It also received coverage in the LA Times article already currently used in the article as a reference, and multiple law review articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a top two or three company in its field; it is highly regarded in paralegal studies. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As evidenced by the sources already in the article, this is an important entity in US civil litigation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per all of above. JAMS is extremely significant in its field, provides the mediation and arbitration services of numerous retired judges and experienced lawyers, and it is quite reasonable for interested readers to expect us to have an article about it. Note that Articles for deletion/National Arbitration and Mediation was closed last year as Keep, and JAMS is probably more prominent than NAM, which provides the same types of services. (Disclosure: I'm a practicing litigator and have settled several cases with help from JAMS mediators. Unfortunately, they are not available to handle on-wiki disputes, or MedCom and ArbCom would have long since signed them up.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the expert above. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.