Talk:freedom of the press

Perhaps an "only in" template for this encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 06:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakish delete, quite sum of parts but a good list of translations would make the article useful. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think if you were to simply guess what it meant you could reasonably guess wrong; so it's not simply sum of parts. For example is it about the freedom of a religion to do something or the freedom of somebody to hold a religion, clearly the latter, but you wouldn't necessarily know that.Wolfkeeper 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, unless we're going to delete freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. --EncycloPetey 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to meet the suggested condition. Adding more freedoms that have no place here. They all seem like WP material. An only-in entry would help reduce the likelihood that we would keep getting entries from well-meaning contributors. I would be happy to see translations on only-ins if that would make translators happy. DCDuring TALK 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how such translations could work, since there is always the possibility of multiple senses (though perhaps not in the cases currently under discussion). I could see linking these to an Appendix on freedoms where the Translations would be given. --EncycloPetey 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the cases so far have been to single articles at WP, not dab pages, AFAICT, but, you are correct: that need not always be true. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as specialist terms, idiomatic, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kept all, consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)