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 speedy keep. Withdrawn, and snowing anyway. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee[edit]

Arbitration Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No reliable secondary sources actually talk about arbcom. Most of them do not mention them, or just gives a slight passing mention. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 06:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 06:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination's claim is blatantly false. It does not provide any evidence in support of its claim, does not address the 27 citations in the existing page or the additional counter-examples which may be easily found such as Wired and Wall Street Journal. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ArbCom had a full-fledged article in the Wall Street Journal as mentioned above (see the Wikipedia page talk page's templates) and was repeatedly mentioned in this story from the Washington Post. We also have similar encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia administrators, Wikipedian in residence and Wikipedia bots. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 10:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Editor has clearly not looked at article or done a WP:Before! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per the others. Sorry. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above arguments. Genuinely thought this was a WP:APRIL edit momentarily. ser! (chat to me). 12:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Might want to take a look at this on the article talk page. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 14:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is to say I think speedy close C3 may not apply here. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 14:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Withdrawn. Clearly no consensus to delete. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 18:57, 27 February 2021 (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.