Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of Construction Arbitrators


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Society of Construction Arbitrators

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I could not establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG, ORG and (on account of CIMAR) AUTHOR. Plenty of coverage. James500 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:ORG. sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Plenty of secondary sources are available from GBooks. They do not have to be physically present in our article, as I am sure you are well aware. The Construction Industry Model Arbitration Rules are discussed at enormous length in (independent, reliable and secondary) source after source after source. That means that the society satisfies WP:AUTHOR (in particular) easily and by a wide margin. James500 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The greater part of chapter 2 of this book is a commentary on them, they are discussed on 18 separate pages of this book (and the society is explicity discussed on pp 92, 264 and 265) and here is a lengthy bibliography of periodical articles and case law on them. And there is a great deal more where that came from. So there can't really be any doubt that the society satisfies WP:AUTHOR (in particular). James500 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG clearly states that it does not apply to "co-authors", which is what the society are. So that particular guideline clearly isn't relevant to notability based on authorship. James500 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added several sources but there are many more. This is a very notable, highly respected, and important organization.I am One of Many (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:34, 27 August 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.