Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone recording laws


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Telephone recording laws

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is useless or harmful, I suggest it be deleted or heavily reduced

Even though the introduction states it is about rules on participants recording their own calls (which is contradictory to the title) the article is a mess of wire-tap and private persons' call recording rules, casually mixed toghether. A few sections are good, such as for example Latvia, Denmark, which say that people can record their phone calls. Others are misleading and misplaced, such as section on India, dealing with wire-tap rules. Some also discuss illegal phone intercepts. Germany is a mess with contradictory statements in the introduction (why have Germany in introduction at all, it she mother of "Telephone recording laws"?) and country's section.

It would be useful to have possibility of learning what are the relevant rules accross the World, however, those things are completely different from the rules on wire tap and somewhat different from business phone tape rules. The article as it is now shows intention to emphasize this difference, but achieves the opposite. Those two - criminal and civil rules - should not be put togeher in one story, much less in a senseless mix. Bete (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Poor quality in an article is no reason to delete, poor quality is a reason to warn and improve. 173.48.112.24 (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 7.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 14:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:HURT and WP:USELESS are not reasons for deletion. Though the article is in a bad shape, it can be fixed by regular editing. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can't see any immediate harm from this article. {{{sub|C}}  A S U K I T E  T} 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter   (rap)  @ 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, unless there's a better article to merge this into. The subject is notable. Everything the nom lists is reason to improve the article, not to delete it. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly a notable topic and already meets WP:GNG. Sure it needs much editing but AfD is not a clean up forum. The way forward is to improve not delete. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and fixable per Whispering and Owen. This is not so bad it needs to be blown up.  It certainly could use some major editing, but I don't see any actual legal malpractice in the article. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2013 (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.