Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 a forecast of sustained snow. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

edit
Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While both Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia are clearly notable, and this information could be summarized in at least Internet Watch Foundation (maybe Wikipedia, but probably not), I see no evidence it is itself notable. I'm sure IWF has blicklisted many thousands of individual URLs, and we have articles on none of the other incidents. Again, note that notability is separate from verifiability, and unrelated to the number of newspapers that mention the incident. Superm401 - Talk 12:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Whether or not a brief summary is included in the Internet Watch Foundation article, this article contains considerable detail that would be clutter in that article. Also, I don't understand the nom's comment that "notability is ... unrelaed to the number of newspapers that mention the incident." Mentions in mainstream media sources have customarily been taken as one indicator of notability, although this is not the only factor. JamesMLane t c 13:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Wikipedia:Notability states clearly, "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Superm401 - Talk 13:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a news site. We don't have an article on the online petition against the depiction of Muhammad in Wikipedia. The event is probably worth mentioned in IWF and maybe in Wikipedia, but a standalone article on it is probably not needed. -- Taku (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep CLearly a notable event, and one which will remain notable in the years to come. Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, there are lots of sources out there, but Wikipedia is still not supposed to cover current events like that. This is only existing because it is of great interested to us, the Wikipedians. Just take another random news event: There are countless sources (way more than there are about the IWF incident) currently reporting that Sony cuts 8000 jobs. But no one is even remotely considering creating 2008 Sony job cuts and writing a lengthy article about the subject. We could do that, but we don't. No one has created Tribune Company bankruptcy yet, either, despite over a thousand sources about the subject. --Conti|✉ 13:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the Sony info could probably be fully summarized within the Sony article. But note, the lack of potential other articles does not negate the inclusion of this one in any way. Joshdboz (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point, actually. This whole issue can be (and already has been!) covered in Internet Watch Foundation instead. --Conti|✉ 13:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in fact you favor merging instead of deleting. Perfectly reasonable, except that the amount of info in the current article would likely be too much for a complete merger, hence the need for a break out article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, yes. I don't see why we should merge all the content anywhere, tho. Or rather, if we would, we should prune it to a reasonable amount (per WP:UNDUE), and then we'd end up with one paragraph in Internet Watch Foundation. Which is the current status quo in that article anyhow. So, in the end, I favour redirecting. --Conti|✉ 13:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps a name change is in order, but clearly notable. Notability is linked to the amount of printed material on the matter, and the breath and depth of media on this very subject is quite satisfactory for inclusion.
I don't dispute that notability and the qty of printed matter are related, but I think the implication goes "degree of notability high => qty of printed matter high", which does not imply "qty of printed matter high => degree of notability high". 118.90.94.7 (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The coverage being received is a clear indication of notability. The fall-out from the event as a result (already evidenced in Australia, per the article) makes this all the more so. Ros0709 (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is the first example of this incompetant self-appointed group of clowns targetting a major website, and is the first example of the effect that ISP-level filtering can have on a major website, and indeed the problems with that kind of filtering in general. It's been widely covered by the press, both in the UK and elsewhere, and I'm even hearing that 2 major Australian ISPs have reversed their decision to filter content as a result of this. --135.196.27.80 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge to History of Wikipedia--MacStrong (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per multiple WP:V and WP:RS asserting notability, per WP:NOTE. In future this article could be expanded to include other controversies around the IWF, but there is more than enough to justify a seperate article, and this would overwhelm the IWF article. Putting the image in question on the IWF article itself with this content would also be tasteless, though it is justified in this article. I see no policy arguments for deletion. Added bonus: a light should always be cast on censorship, whether justified or not, but especially when unjustified (I realise that isn't wikipedia policy, that's just my view) Verbal chat 13:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the nom. The only reason why articles like this can be written is because it somehow involves those writing the very articles themselves. While the article tries to keep to WP:WAWI (not much in terms of "rules" but trying to write about Wikipedia in the third person, obviously) its obvious that a similar ban of another website wouldn't be written about---so the fact that WP is involved is the reason why the article exists. So, the article is the product of the enthusiasm of WP editors and not of notability. Of course, the two can overlap, but not in this case.
The IWP ban is considered notable because it hit WP, and so it got media coverage. But people don't consider that media coverage != notability, e.g. main stream media write about incidents on other notable websites such as Amazon, BBC itself (China internet block etc), and so on. WP editors (for the most part) don't consider that, since they themselves are the source for the article, and since we are all notable in our own eyes, it and the media coverage permit writing about editors' own activities (sorry for the mixed them/us :p). 118.90.94.7 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having an article about the controversy without showing the reader what the controversy is actually about is patently ridiculous. There is no cause to remove the image from the article, and a link alone is insufficient. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the reader cannot understand words to the effect of "the image can be found here", then frankly nothing is going to enhance their understanding of the situation. Since I completed my counterargument about whether the source is fair use NOBODY has answered me, because the inconvenient truth is it doesn't qualify. And even if it did, knowing full well what the consequences would be, it's nonsensical to suggest that ignoring all rules should not at least be CONSIDERED. BeL1EveR (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article is well written – well sourced and covers a Notable topic that clearly has far reaching implications. Though it centers on one particular piece, the inference is that it could be used to start down that slippery slop called Censorship which is indeed notable not only as it pertains to just this piece but the foundation of Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 13:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ec) More than enough significant coverage in reliable sources for verifiability and notability. WP:NOT#NEWS talks about 'routine' news coverage - there is no way that the wide international coverage of this event, which is the first time this has arisen in the UK, could be described as a routine event. The example one of the delete opinions above gave involving job losses is unfortunatly a routine event so should does fall under NOT#NEWS. NOT#NEWS also talks about historical significance of an event and I feel that the first event in the UK which has got significant coverage about an instance of censorship is historically significant. Davewild (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is surely far more notable than nearly all the other events linked to in the Wikipedia template e.g Essjay_controversy, Seigenthaler_incident & Henryk_Batuta_hoax ? Not only has the issue received national TV, Radio and Press coverage in the UK it has sparked a wider debate on Internet censorship which most UK users were not aware of until this event. Majts (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability of this incident is clearly established by the number of sources. As it stands, it isn't obvious which article this could be merged into, there are a few possibilities, and the length might be an issue. Whilst this incident is still very much ongoing and we can no doubt expect further developments, it would seem premature to start trying to merge. Wikipedia isn't a news website, no, but neither is this a news article. Just because an article documents a current event, it doesn't make Wikipedia an inappropriate venue. Adambro (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep & Speedy Close Nomination is a WP:POINTy example of bad faith nominating if I ever saw one. L0b0t (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reason why this is eligible for speedy close or for accusing me of bad faith? Superm401 - Talk 14:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is not made in good faith either :). The nominator is not disrupting any of our internal processes to prove his point (which would be?) -- lucasbfr talk 14:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced, notable. Won't be less notable a week from now. rootology (C)(T) 13:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable controversy, plenty of sourcing. However the inclusion of the album cover here raises fair use questions and the fact that it means this page may end up blocked as well means that inclusion could go against the spirit of WP:POINT. --Nate1481 13:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's got plenty of sources, so no problems with notability. We cannot say what will be notable in 20 years time, we're writing an encyclopaedia for TODAY, and today this is notable. As for the image, of course it should be included, it's the whole reason the article exists. Even if it does get blocked in Britain, that's utterly irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. If it's not going to be notable in 20 years, it's not notable now. Superm401 - Talk 14:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, actually you have it the wrong way round. It states that if it is notable now, which it is, there's no need to show ongoing notability. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep More notable than other articles in a similar vein that do deserve to exist (Essjay, Seigenthaler). The amount of press coverage alone suggests that if we don't have an article on this event we're take no-self-references too far. Very, very notable. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it seems to satisfy notability concerns, and is likely too long now to merge into the main IWF article. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wide variety of reliable-source discussion of this make it clearly notable, and it most certainly appears from some of the reports that this incident may have long-term implications - thus WP:NOTNEWS is not in itself a problem. I'd also suggest a speedy-close of this AfD based on strong consensus to keep combined with this articles' current high visibility: having an encyclopedic way of discussing this incident is important given that many people will instinctively turn to Wikipedia to find out more about this issue. ~ mazca t|c 14:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I think this is worthy of mention in the IWF and Wikipedia articles, this event would not stand a chance here if it was not regarding Wikipedia itself. I think there is a self-centered bias here. Maybe it'll be notable in a near future (say if this changes the way the UK treats the Internet, one way or an other), but the fact is that this is not the case yet. This is news, this is not encyclopedic. -- lucasbfr talk 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In fact, it does effect how the UK treats the internet. As 90% of IP were blocked. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 15:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To a certain extent this incident already has significantly changed the way the UK treats the Internet by alerting it's users that the practice of such arbitrary censorship is occuring. It's rather a big deal to find out that an unelected and unaccountable organisation is censoring the web for the entire nation using dubious criteria to ban pages & images. I wouldn't even be surprised if it gets mentioned during Prime_Ministers_Questions tomorrowMajts (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to break the news to you, but there's a big, big chance that the world stopped caring already. I'll guess we'll see in a month, but I'm pretty sure we are too involved to see that (reminds me people from a band/company commenting at their own AFD discussion). -- lucasbfr talk 16:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with IWF, internet censorship, virgin killers, something like that. it's a notable current event (e.g., it's made the BBC). it is fully noteworthy enough for a place on wikinews. it is not noteworthy enough for an encyclopaedic entry unless you take a strong bias towards wikipedian goings-on as being inherently noteworthy. otoh, maybe keep for now, as it re-enforces the streisand effect? I know wp shouldn't be political, but politics is, undenyably, touching wp right now. --Dak (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now. This is an ongoing event whose full significance is not yet completely clear. It may very well make sense to merge into Virgin Killer at some point but we should at minimum wait for the dust to settle before making such a decision. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article but remove the image in question before the IWF blacklists this article, as well, for child pornography. Otherwise, notability is clearly established. MuZemike (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Whether or not the image is included is irrelevant in discussion about whether or not this article should be deleted. Please focus on this issue and keep any discussions about the image on the talk page of the article. Adambro (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the IWF blocks thousands of site/images, the blocking of Wikipedia caused huge mainstream press stories, that are significant. I'd suggest waiting until it's long over before AFDing it again, whilst people still aren't feeling strong emotions about it. – amicon 15:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is very significant event as it is the first time that a democratic country has blocked access to Wikipedia. There are also articles on other events like this on Wikipedia (look at the navbox at the bottom of the page). -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Imperator3733's comment just above. This event is very significant. V D on a public PC (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep- well known worldwide, part of wiki history. V1t 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This event is more notable than Essjay controversy or Seigenthaler incident. It is well written and well sourced. AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep—notability utterly demonstrable almost-instinct 16:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we cannot make a meaningful decision to delete at this time. --Kizor, logged out

*Keep, as wikipedia controversies go the banning of every anonymous user in its second largest contributor is significant. Whilst I very strongly disagree with the image inclusion on the basis that nobody's conclusively explained how it isn't a copyvio AND the affected audience won't be able to read, I still support the article being here. 81.108.87.117 BeL1EveR (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC) See below BeL1EveR (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if this seems like a long rant, but it is a justification for why it could be kept. However, the title should be changed, with the page being moved to Internet Watch Foundation 2008 Wikipedia controversy. This is equally as notable as Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row. There are good and both arguments on both sides, but for now I will just leave this as a comment. You can decide based on my arguments. AC --Sunstar NW XP (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt the place to discuss title changes, please use the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a discussion of title changes, more the arguments for keep/deletion. AC --Sunstar NW XP (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion section re the title in the article talk page, and not a sopurce of controversy. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Clearly notable, AP + Register + other sources covering, and it's notability won't expire. DavidWS (contribs) 19:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - for now at least, and consider consolidating elsewhere or renaming as appropriate, when it is clear this event is over and Wikipedia is completely de-proxied. The technical information in the Adminstrators noticeboard should probably be kept somewhere too, either in whatever this article is finalized as, or a section in the IWF article. Ace of Risk (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems like a "Duh" moment to me. Clearly notable. Grsz11 19:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Filtering the Internet is not something that is joked with. It is censorship and violates human rights. Marlow925 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. When everything is settled down one keep can look if it perhaps should (or not) be merged somewhere. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable enough circumstance that it has received coverage is major international media (as cited). Beyond that, it also has a useful purpose in educating Wikipedia editors about some of the risks related to an international site such as this. In the event this is deemed an unsuitable article (though it appears unlikely given the response) I would encourage that it be kept in some form in the WP article space as an essay or some such. A better title could be found for the article, and I'm not sure if reproducing the album cover in question in this article is supported by the fair use policy (I'll let someone else handle that). 23skidoo (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and see the large highly publicity worldwide coverage on mainstream press here. --Ciao 90 (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep highly publicised and important in terms of UK censorship, widely covered in worldwide media and online, further issues are certain to occur in the future over wikipedia images. 129.11.76.229 (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, This event has proved to be a significant discussion point generating feedback for both Wikipedia and the IWF that can stand apart from the two as a debate over censorship and the knowledge based society in its own right. This grants this page notability as a distinct entity that can be discussed with or without either of the two parent topics. Therefore it deserves an entry in its own right. Or, to put things another way, under Wikipedia notability guidelines a topic should only be covered as a subsection of a parent topic if the subject is not notable without the parent topic, however in this case the level of debate and the depth of the debate grants this topc notability that is independent of the notability of its parent topics (Wikipedia and the IWF), thus grantign it the factors necessary for its own page. -CrazyChinaGal (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this will no doubt stand the test of time and prove to be a notable event, covered in many media articles. GreenOnBlue (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia&oldid=1137933280"