Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandatory arbitration


 * 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 DELETE. Redirects for this and similar terms (compelled arbitration, compulsory arbitration, etc.) might be a good idea to help prevent future POV fork creation. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory arbitration

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is presently a blatant violation of WP:NPOV as an obviously negative essay on the subject, including choice passages like "individuals would be given a choice in the matter and would not be denied their constitutional right to access the courts and have a jury trial." It does not provide any positive details of arbitration as enumerated in court opinions and legal journals. Also, it cites no sources.

Relevant details are already covered at Arbitration, so I don't see the need of this article as a PoV fork. The Arbitration Fairness Act (in its various incarnations) could have its own article, but there is nothing to salvaged from this article. RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that the Arbitration Fairness Act is already discussed at Arbitration in the United States.  This would appear to be lifted from that section of the article, which would make this a content fork as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I hate repeating User:Ihcoyc's points, but they're spot-on: this is a WP:POVFORK that is redundant to Arbitration in the United States.  POV is a reason to correct, not to delete, but here, the subject is already properly treated in a nother article. TJRC (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, the use of adjectives such as "binding" and "mandatory" arbitration are a grammatical pet peeve of mine.  Their uses are redundant and smack of Newspeak and weasel words.  Arbitration is always mandatory, if it's in a contract. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is non-binding arbitration, which is really designed to give the parties an idea of how well they'd fare if they went into actual litigation or binding arbitration, to encourage settlement. As far as "mandatory" is concerned, I've seen agreements that include a provision that the parties will work together to settle disputes without resort to litigation, and including such suggested vehicles as mediation, arbitration, etc.  And in some cases, arbitration is not mentioned in the agreement at all, and the parties decide to go to it as a less-expensive alternative to litigation.  In such cases, arbitration is not mandatory. So the qualifiers don't bother me as much.  Arbitration is the name for the process, which may or may not be either binding or mandatory. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POVFORK. Also note that Arbitration in the United States contains a section on the proposed "Arbitration Fairness Act" which is substantially a copy of material in this article (and which suffers from the same POV problems).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:41, 29 July 2011 (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.