Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Articles with deliberate omissions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was G7 speedy delete - appropriateness of venue becomes a moot point given author's request. BencherliteTalk 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Articles with deliberate omissions
...and the associated template omission. These pages are not in use and there is no sign that they ever were except in disputed cases. It seems like we should strive to make the purpose of these pages the exception not the rule, so by all means let's recreate them if Wikipedia ever has the misfortune of having to use them. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are you sure you didn't mean to go to WP:CFD? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as the template is just as much up for deletion as the category, I thought Miscellany would be more appropriate. CFD is mostly focused on encyclopedic categories, whereas the deletion of this is more related to the principles of the project, as with project namespace pages which are nominated here. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this template (another user had created a very similar one in User space; the breadcrumb edits back to it were deleted though) to have something to alert our readers to articles where easily verifiable info has been omitted from an article due to an WP:OFFICE action. Seems like a tag we might need from time to time. although the particular case I created it for was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I don't know if I want to have to recreate it from scratch next time I need it, but whatever is clever. -- Kendrick7talk 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In exactly what context does the WMF forsee having to remove such content? If facts are widespread enough to be easily verifiable, I can't see who would object to Wikipedia covering it. The fact that WP:OFFICE allows it doesn't mean it should be assumed to be an anticipated practice. In the same vein, I could create a category for articles containing neo-nazi propaganda - y'know, because of office actions - because there might come a day where some bizarre legal incident requires it. If the work is an issue, you could always back the template up in your user space. As for the category, I dearly dearly hope that this kind of eventuality never becomes so commonplace that a category be suitable for aggregating them all. Even one would represent something so constitutionally alarming that I'm sure it would be treated in the WP:OFFICE page. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This was created in the context of Talk:Giovanni di Stefano (note, the article and talk page history have been deleted several times, so as I hinted above, the discussion of an earlier rendition of the template is lost). At the time, the issue was that an article subject could file suit overseas in a court where libel laws greatly differ from those in the U.S. (e.g. Great Britain) hence invoking office action beyond the normal WP:BLP requirements involving the State of Florida, etc. Anyway, shortly after I made the template, Jimbo himself showed up, and things finally settled down. I guess. If the template is otherwise unless -- yeah, transwiki the code to my user page and Delete is fine with me! -- Kendrick7talk 22:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - please take the template to WP:TFD and the category to WP:CFD, noting the other discussion in each location. That's what's usually done e.g. when there's an article at WP:AFD and a related category at WP:CFD.  WP:MFD isn't for overlapping XFD matters and template/category matters are best handled at the "specialist" locations. BencherliteTalk 21:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read both CFD and TFD and neither are populated with the same kind of pages as these. Conversely, MFD is generally involved in treating project and particularly policy-related pages. Since this is clearly not just a routine nomination about encyclopedic value, it would a rather tedious act of instruction creep to shut down the discussion underway, split it in two and repost it. Can't we just find a consensus? BigBlueFish (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, MFD says that neither categories nor templates are eligible for nomination here. I'm more active at CFD than MFD (let alone TFD) and regularly see "project/policy" categories coming up for discussion, not just "encyclopedic" categories: from January example, example, example, example - and from late December this and this where a category and related template were both up for discussion. Is it really instruction creep to follow existing instructions? BencherliteTalk 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Self-speedied As the creator, I've gone ahead and speedied the template and the category. This should be moot. -- Kendrick7talk 22:15, 18 January 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.