Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Articles Relating to Terms of Service and Privacy Policies


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Index of Articles Relating to Terms of Service and Privacy Policies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The lead indicates this will be bad: "Some Wikipedia articles compare terms of service, privacy and data policies....". This article is indeed problematic on many levels. No indication of notability and WP:OR issues. It is a non-list list (a list article without a 'list of' in the title), but really more like a non-outline WP:OUTLINE, or... well, it's a mess. There is already a Category:Terms of service. I don't see what this article, which is essentially a 'see also' section of it, adds to this project. If seen as a list, it is too indiscriminate (fails WP:LISTCRITERIA - it's not unambiguous, objective, nor supported by reliable sources - it's a list invented by the author, not replicated in any shape by any source, and consisting of articles related to ToS that they thought relevant based on personal criteria) - it's like saying we can have a 'list of articles related to any other article'. While the author should be commended for trying to improve an important topic, creating such a 'non-list lists' is not the right way of going about it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I prepared the article because the topic is notable, with citations to major newspapers worldwide. The nomination itself says this is "an important topic" and endorses Category:Terms of service. The list and category standard says lists and categories "are synergistic, each one complementing the others... the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." The title shows the topic. The lead divides this into three sections: comparisons, companies, and general. All are closely and clearly related to terms of service and privacy policies. And improvements in this lead are certainly welcome. The Lists~Development standard encourages lists like this which show what Wikipedia covers, and which show gaps where more is needed. Lists serve "as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia" (Lists~Navigation). Piotrus repeats here his concern about OR without citing any. It's worth remembering that WP:OR means "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", and if someone identifies any, that should be omitted. The nomination twice calls the article a "non-list list." I don't know what that means; maybe someone else can clarify this concern. Numbersinstitute (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OR in this context refers to the 'kitchen sink' method of choosing articles to include in this list. You just included articles which you think are related to the topic. This does not make for a valid list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * keep arguments that say the list is non complete are invalid when it comes to deleting the whole article. As this is wikipedia, pages can be edited by numerous editors. All pages have to start somewhere and it is up to the community to improve them. The "nonlist list" argument also isn't convincing and isn't explained.Egaoblai (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. While terms of service may be an important topic, Wikipedia's own coverage of terms of service has not been established as a notable topic. However, if this list of articles which refer to or discuss terms of service is useful to some editors, I would accept moving it to somewhere outside the mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia's own coverage" is almost never "established as a notable topic", but lists and categories are encouraged anyway (CLN). All lists include non-notable articles, on notable subjects, which editors think are related to the list (e.g. electronics, pseudoscience, psychology, soil, Yellowstone). Numbersinstitute (talk). I've clarified the lead, if that helps. 18:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an index page, not an article. The notability standard is irrelevant here (it would be for the individual pages listed).  DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What does keeping this as an index page entitles? Just keeping it? Or changing namespaces? Structure? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have said, a page serving as an index, like WP:Set index articles.  DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment the article is poorly titled, and the three sections are very different both stylistically and in terms of content. I'm not sure it's so bad as to qualify for TNT deletion, but it needs significant work. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:03, 21 September 2017 (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.