Intellectual property policy: What the article calls "National IP policies"—such as patent and copyright terms—are very different from, for example, university IP licensing agreements and corporate transparency/trade secrets.  There does not appear to be a good reason to conflate each of those distinct concepts in a single article.  Moreover, those concepts are all dealt with more extensively in other articles, such as Technology transfer (for universities), Intellectual property (for broad policy considerations in forming a national/international IP regime), and Trade secrets .  As this article is poorly sourced and has several tone issues, I do not think merger is appropriate (or really possible) and recommend deletion.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Organizations ,  and Business .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve .  In years past, I worked on intellectual property policies for a number of different kinds of institutions, and I am very comfortable saying that this is a notable concept that should be covered.  With respect to the concept of "national IP policies", a distinction can be drawn between the intellectual property protections generally made available under national laws, and the policies of a national government regarding the use, licensure, or commitment to the public domain of its own content that would otherwise be subject to intellectual property protections.  Some countries do claim copyright ownership, for example, over government decrees.  BD2412 T 03:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think part of my issue is with the name of the article because, as we've both noted, there are distinctions in different kinds of IP policies; maybe one solution is moving the article to something like Institutional intellectual property policy ?  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve : per BD2412 T 's arguments Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve , not only per BD2412 , but also because Wikipedia editors (often used to dealing with public-domain documents due to their own nation's policies) really truly NEED to understand that there are differences elsewhere, making some documents unsuitable for direct inclusion here – they can be discussed, paraphrased, summarized, but not directly quoted at length.  The topic is important to WP; it needs to be covered, and covered well.  The solution to bad writing in this case is to improve it, not delete the coverage.  – .  Raven .  talk 17:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve per BD2412 and . Raven.  Both sum it up aptly.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:09, 24 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep