Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of websites using two-factor authentication


 * 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 delete. To some extent the discussion hinges on the applicability of NLIST, but Toohoo's comment counters that, to the extent that they argue that this topic does not deserve to stand alone as an article, and claims that this fails NOTDIR support that argument. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

List of websites using two-factor authentication

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inherently incomplete and ever-changing list. said it quite well, What's the point of this list? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wikipedia is inherently incomplete and ever-changing. This is a list with a clear, fairly standard inclusion criteria (notable websites and reliable sources which talk about their two-step verification) and which is a notable subject appropriate for a stand-alone list. There are plenty of lists of websites with two-factor verification/authentication out there to establish notability, for example. There's an argument for merging it into two-step authentication, I suppose, but the bigger subject isn't just about websites, and even if it were, the list is sufficiently long that it would merit spinning off anyway. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As an aside, and acknowledging this is not a good keep argument in its own right (hence being an aside), it's useful. There's a pretty clear consensus among reliable sources that enabling two-step verification on the websites you use most is beneficial from a security standpoint. That's why so many other publications publish lists like this and articles about individual sites' verification mechanisms. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing: The quote in the nomination from Bikefridaywalter was about this version, when it was called two-step verification. That was the version I first saw, too. It was a mess of OR and weak sources and partly redundant to two-step authentication. I removed the garbage, moved the article to be a list, redirected the original title to two-step authentication, and added more reliable sources. It's not an ideal list, but it's an appropriate (i.e. keep-worthy) one that no longer suffers from OR, sourcing, or redundancy problems. I'm not saying that Bikefridaywalter would change his mind, but there's some context, anyway. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to two-factor authentication or multi-factor authentication. This is trivial and fleeting information. Wikipedia is not a user's manual for the Internet. And the list is likely to grow to a ridiculous size as MFA becomes more widespread. When a particular website's use of MFA has been noted by secondary sources, e.g. a news article about Twitter adding it, that may be worth noting, and I would suggest merging only those entries of the list that have such sources. Toohool (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When a particular website's use of MFA has been noted by secondary sources, e.g. a news article about Twitter adding it, that may be worth noting - I would agree with a merge if it were only Google, FaceBook, and Dropbox, but there are a whole lot of sites covered by reliable sources. It's pretty easy to find sources for them, since every publication wants to tell its readers how to be safer. There were already several in the list and I just added a bunch more. That there are both news stories about individual services adding it as well as lists of sites that offer it establish notability, so I fail to see what policy-based reason there would be not to keep it. It could indeed be a relatively long list (which isn't a problem as long as we stick to those that are reliably sourced), so why would it be better for it to occupy a big portion of one of those other articles? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 04:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that information can be cited to a reliable source is not sufficient to justify its inclusion. Wikipedia is a summary, not a compilation of all human knowledge. To have a comprehensive article about multi-factor authentication, we don't have to list every known place it is used. It is probably enough to give just a few examples to show that it has been growing in popularity over time period X, and has been adopted by some of the most popular web sites. Toohool (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This article falls squarely into WP:NOT, as has been stated above. --torri2(talk/contribs) 23:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR. —Keφr 08:29, 1 August 2015 (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.