Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Arbitration and Mediation


 * 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. L Faraone  00:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

National Arbitration and Mediation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google news gives one insignificant hit. Google web search lists the official site and generic listings. The article as it stands does not have a single source that is not its official site. Notability has not been established. And while the article is not as bad of a blatant advertisement as often seen it does read like a directory listing.

Also, the editor who created the article has been indeffed for spamming and at least one other version of this article was deleted before getting this one to stick. SQGibbon (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep Article: WP:COMPANY NAM (National Arbitration and Mediation), Inc. is a notable corporation. Dquinnadr (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:COMPANY says what you think it does. Anyway, we still need at least two independent reliable sources who cover the subject in significant detail in order to establish notability.  There still isn't even one. SQGibbon (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Added reliable sources that establish notability. Dquinnadr (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately those appear to be press releases (at least the two I could check) which is not considered a reliable source as per WP:SPS (click on the footnote link for the specific language against using press releases). SQGibbon (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@SQGibbon: What defines an independent reliable source? I am the Asst Dir of IT for NAM (Ref Page) and DQuinnadr is a Project Assistant for NAM (Ref Page). DQuinnadr has been authorized by the Owner of the Company NAM (Ref Page) to edit this Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.82.170 (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

KEEP National Arbitration & Mediation, Inc. is often referred to as "NAM" - perhaps this is a cause for confusion. When this editor began to update this wikipedia page, the title of the article read "National Arbitration and Mediation," however, a new page would need to be created to say "National Arbitration & Mediation (NAM)" to express that form of the entity's name. NAM is the first party source of information - it is verifiable by the resources and references made throughout the article - I'm not sure what kind of third-party recognition would be necessary. The "press releases" cited throughout the article should serve as a viable source of proof that the entity exists. This editor is currently working on finding more third-party sources to satisfy Wikipedia's policies on notability. Dquinnadr (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see: Secretary of State - NY Corporations Dquinnadr (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of whether this company exists, it clearly does, it's more if it meets Wikipedia standards for notability. What we're looking for is significant coverage (not just a mention) in what is generally considered a reliable source.  This could be a newspaper or magazine or any other notable, independent, and reliable sources.  Anything that is self-published (like a website or a press release) does not go toward establishing notability.  It also does not matter if user Dquinnadr has been authorized to edit the article as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit including someone like me who has never heard of this company.  But you might also want to read up on the Wikipedia guideline concerning conflicts of interest which you are admitting to here. Finally, changing the name is easy to do once notability has been established. SQGibbon (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do understand that the press releases do not go toward establishing notability, however, the two other sources that are cited are a law journal and a newpaper article, both discuss National Arbitration and Mediation and its services and history. I do not understand why those citations would not be good enough -- they are reliable sources and easy to find. As far as conflict of interest goes, I am looking to comply with Wikipedia's policies and in no way am attempting to have this page serve as advertisement for the company, merely a source of information available. I will delete or modify any text on this page that even remotely appears to serve as advertisement, because I do fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia and any mistakes I have made in that regard were purely overlooked. I will continue to search for viable resources if this page does indeed need more than what is already there to establish notability. Dquinnadr (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

KEEP I do not see the difference in what NAM - National Arbitration and Mediation is utilizing Wikipdeia for in relation to other companies listed in Wikipedia in the same marketplace. This article appears to be a good reference without crossing the line into advertisement. Also, I verified that there are two independent sources, a Law Journal and a Newspaper Article that both discuss National Arbitration and Mediation and its history, both are considered third party sources. I believe the links were not established because of the nature of the literature (they are not online references). In addition, NAM - National Arbitration and Mediation, is listed in numerous online articles, but unfortunately, all are "pay per view" references that I was unable to view without having an account. Mmoreomwm (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

KEEP I agree with Mmoreomwm above. I checked these sources out, they were easily accessible and they establish National Arbitration and Mediation's notability as a company. I don't think that this article violates any of Wikipedia's policy.Gemini2626 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The two editors above who !voted to "keep" just above me are both accounts that were created on the 12th (the same day they !voted) and have not editing anything except this page. I'm trying to AGF but it does look suspiciously canvass-like/puppety. As a side note, if the sources that are not accessible online do indeed establish notability then the minimum requirements are met, but I am unable to check the sources. If there is cavassing/puppetry going on then we might need someone else to verify those sources. SQGibbon (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)



I am unsure why anyone would have difficulty finding the sources cited. They were found and can be found still using Google News and or JSTOR. Many of the other articles and journals that NAM appears in are pay-per-view and therefore cannot be accessed, but they exist nonetheless. Literature about National Arbitration and Mediation seems to be located in the Deep Web and is near impossible to gain access to. Is there another means of accessing such literature? I am looking to satisfy all of Wikipedia's standards and am having a difficult time doing so -- again, I understand that the company's own website does not serve as a viable source, however, all of the information presented in this Wikipedia article comes from the company's website as well as the multiple valid sources cited throughout. National Arbitration and Mediation appears in a multitude of articles and law journals, which can be observed by doing a simple Google News search -- the information presented throughout the article can be validated by the articles found through this search, which are each cited properly. Dquinnadr (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Strong keep. This organization is a highly significant and well-known national dispute-resolution provider. The article could use some rewriting, but there should be no serious question as to the NAM's notability. Newyorkbrad (talk)
 * Keep There may not be independent sources for them on a regular Google search, but I had no problem finding independent sources via a Google Scholar search. (scholar.google.com) (Just to be clear, since there's discussion above about interested parties participating in this thread, I have no association with them whatsoever.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillbillyGoat (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could either of you provide an actual link/citation that meets WP:GNG (significant coverage by a reliable independent source)? Looking the subject up on Google Scholar provided some hits but not being able to read most of it (paywalled) it was not clear if these were just mentions or actual in-depth coverage of the subject. The links I did click on were definitely not about NAM but apparently mention them in the article. Yes they exist, yes they get mentioned, but as of yet it is not clear that they are notable. SQGibbon (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge, or delete and redirect Bloomberg's investing.businessweek.com is usually a good indicator of notability.  In this case, they list the company but there is no associated write-up.  The article itself is spammy and lacks inline citations.  The sections of the article starting with "Roster of Neutrals" to the end of the article can be deleted immediately as BLP violations and spam.  The section Alternative Dispute Resolution is not much better.  I don't think we are interested in claims by the company that their associates are "skilled".  Looking at the brief mentions in the Google Books snippets shows that this topic is mentioned with peer companies, and suggests that a proper place for this topic in the encyclopedia is in a List of Alternative Dispute Resolution companies.  I looked at the American Arbitration Association article and it is completely unsourced.  This book snippet adds two more names for the list, "Resolute Systems and U.S. Arbitration & Mediation.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete it's possible they may be notable, but this article is essentially pure advertising. a long list of some of their notable staff, a list of what sort of cases they engage in--which comprises essentially everything that might possibly be relevant, names of all the trade organizations they belong to, definitions of basic terms for the unfamiliar, which may be needed on a web site but in a wiki, is handled by hyperlinks. Unscintillating, why do you consider a mere listing on businnessweek.com a reliable indication of notability--though of course the data it provides is reliable and the data may indicate notability through size or NYSE membership or other factors, or through the references given to news accounts.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What I said about the Bloomberg listing is that "there is no associated write-up." So Bloomberg does not encourage me that this topic is wp:notable.  On the other hand, Bloomberg considers the topic to be worthy of a mention, which is more than nothing.  Here is a Forbes article from 1999 that verifies that this company was once traded on NASDAQ.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is anyone able to explain why the wikipedia articles of like companies such as JAMS (Alternative Dispute Resolution) are not being challenged, as the aforementioned article contains content and format correlative to NAM's? Are any of the above contributors able to offer some absolute and constructive advice for editing NAM's wikipedia article to conform with wikipedia's policies and purpose? This article has been modified over and over in an attempt to comply with all of wikipedia's guidelines -- it seems that the highly contradictory views and opinions stated above are hindering any editor's capability to write/edit an acceptable article. Dquinnadr (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at JAMS (alternative dispute resolution), the article has no secondary references.  I have previously mentioned that American Arbitration Association is likewise unsourced.  It would be possible (although unusual) to add each of these two additional articles to this AfD, but it would require other editors to agree to do so.  If this is possible, I'd support incubating all three.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2013 (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.