Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interconnect agreement


 * 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. John254 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Interconnect agreement

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I was unable to find any sources that defined this phrase or make it WP:NOTABLE. This article is almost a WP:DICTDEF, an "interconnect agreement" is an agreement to interconnect two networks. It has been a stub since it was created in 2005. Before I proposed the speedy-delete, I tried to think of how to expand this and couldn't think of anything, nor could I think of a good target to redirect. I checked for similar articles to see what I could expand this stub with, but couldn't find similarly used phrases such as "sales agreement", "purchasing agreement", "marketing agreement", "property agreement". WP:SIZE says that if an article stays this small for more than a few months, you should think about merging or something. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   —Wrs1864 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Expand, then keep: This article needs expansion, rather than deletion. Interconnect agreements are typically complex, involving coordination of routing policies, acceptable use policies, traffic balancing requirements, etc. etc. Legal requirements are often an issue: for example, networks may be forced by law to interconnect with their competitors. A good article can certainly be written on this topic. -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment yes, that's what I thought, before I actually tried to expand it and find any reliable sources to discuss such issues. It's a geeky topic, and wikipedia has a WP:BIAS toward such issues. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There ought to be some sources available for this.  The article itself is written reasonably clearly and seems free from covert commercial agendas. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Failure to find material on a general topic by keyword searching under phrases one things of is not the only approach. And I suspect it may be used more generally for communication and transportation networks as well. DGG (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (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.