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~~ no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since my original close I have found out that one of the users that commented, SirAppleby is a sockpuppet of MountWassen. Though SirAppleby's reasoning wasn't very strongly based in Wikipedia's deletion policy, excluding SirAppleby from the count is enough for me to change my close to "no consensus", per WP:NOQUORUM. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Internet Exchange[edit]

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

It has no references as to why, it is notable. Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No context. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The context looks perfectly clear to me. What problem do you see with determining the subject of the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to admit that the topic is obscure to me but that must not be the reason for deletion. Having a close look at the category Internet Access Points in Asia, I feel compelled to vote for keep in order to remain consistent with Wikipedia's previous policies. Apparently, some people find this information useful ... But I garee, that the article should be expanded SirAppleby (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Quite notable and well referenced. Google Scholar should be the place to search for links of this exchange than the web. Here's the parent link.[1] Other than than, we have quite some research reports referencing the exchange.[2][3][4]. Wifione ^Message 12:40, 26 October 2012 (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.