- 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 but cleanup and add sources such as the one mentioned below. Davewild (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bill and keep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Article fails to establish importance. Hammer1980·talk 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I just can't see where this article is going, maybe add some more details on which phone companies this applies too?--English836 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Kushalsareen (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)the article is open for anyone to improve upon if you think there is room for that, therefore it is neither appropriate nor necessary to consider deletion. Also whilst I can add more details on which companies this applies too, information on such arrangements is of commercially sensitive nature and should not be in the public ___domain.[reply]
- Keep - based on articles such as this, it looks to be an important telecom billing interconnect concept. The article does need sourcing and cleanup, but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bill and keep - essentially the same principle as "knock for knock". Rich Farmbrough, 10:13 29 November 2007 (GMT).
- 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.