Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)

Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source focuses solely on the Arbitration Committee. Fourmidable (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What has changed since the last discussion? NotAGenious (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I didn't notice it. Fourmidable (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. ArbCom has received a dedicated article in the WSJ, not to mention all of the other articles it's been a part of. SWinxy (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SA. There might be better sources, but these are the ones I found from

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-660300cdd283/files/r5d86p1071	peer-reviewed	very much so	✔ Yes
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/fake-news-wikipedia-arbitration-committee			✔ Yes
https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-wikipedias-bickering-editors-go-to-war-its-supreme-court-steps-in-1525708429			✔ Yes
https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/wikipedia-fram-banning-editor-controversy.html		~ Some mentions about the nature of ArbCom.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The study was actually very interesting, I recommend to anyone interested to have a read. NotAGenious (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourced article, also per above. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 14:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, What the hell is this? Helpful content want to be deleted on the English Wikipedia? That's ridiculous, maybe it just for keep the article as many controversies sourced above. There is absolutely no reason to delete them. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:A1EC:400E:A8F5:F38B (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's advocate moment: WP:ITSUSEFUL. But the coverage meets GNG anyway, so it's somewhat moot, SWinxy (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know the content meets GNG anyway, but don't delete it because it's useful. 2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:A1EC:400E:A8F5:F38B (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't see any reasons for it to be deleted, plenty of sources and notable and important content. GraziePrego (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source assess table. Could probably be WP:SNOW closed at this point. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous reliable news sources support its significance and importance as per guidelines . 1 2 Dcotos (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.