Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia (2nd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. The overwhelming support for keeping the article that was soldified less than 24 hours ago is not going to change this soon. I suggest waiting a month and then AfDing to gauge its "world stopped caring" factor. Nufy8 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An event of strictly limited significance and duration, largely unnoticed in the affected country (where I live, work, have my internet connection, read the papers and watch TV). It got about 1.5 column inches in the paper I read this morning. I would suggest that a brief paragraph in Internet censorship in the United Kingdom would be the appropriate weight to give to this event, the size of the article is a gigantic case of WP:SELFREF and WP:RECENT, the article is longer than the notional parent and higher-level topic of Internet censorship in the United Kingdom. If anyone other than us remembers this in a week I would be amazed. I would smerge it myself but that would unquestionably be contentious so I am bringing it here instead on the basis that the significance of this event as an independent event is not established, and the article fails WP:NOT a tabloid. The historical importance of this event is almost certainly close to zero. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Last nomination was closed less than 24 hours ago. &mdash; neuro(talk) 18:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This just closed per "sustained snow" the other day. Joshdboz (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep A bit too soon for a second nomination, consensus didn't really have time to change since the first one :D --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 10 December 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.