Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irrevocable fee protection 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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Irrevocable fee protection agreement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No attempt made to show that this term is used by anybody. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per above. Also, zero sources and zero indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Scholarly source (International Finance Law Review) demonstrates this is a term of art in finance. A Google Scholar search also pulls up usages of the term in patent documents in the United States; all this proves it's something that is both utilized and commented upon by independent secondary sources. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, per good research by, above, thanks, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a poorly written piece on an encyclopedic fiduciary concept. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting Jennifer VanBaren's contribution to eHow: "An irrevocable fee protection agreement...is an agreement used with buyers and sellers regarding broker's commissions. It is a legal agreement that acknowledges that broker fees will apply as part of a transaction between a buyer or seller." Doesn't count towards notability, obviously, but it does explain the concept and illustrate that it is a term actually used in the real world, contrary to the intimation of the nominator. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's an encyclopedic topic. The term has been used in scholarly sources, as demonstrated by Lord Roem. Article needs a clean up and a few citations.-- xanchester  (t)  08:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Lord Roem  Alex J Fox  (Talk)(Contribs) 00:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Lord Roem's research. While perhaps poorly written, it is most definitely an encyclopedic topic. — Theo polisme  02:07, 14 November 2012 (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.