Deletion of Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

Comment: per multiple  and  asserting notability, per . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NOTE)

Comment: 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  (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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAWI)

Comment: as the references provided in Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia#References indicate that this situation has received extensive international media coverage, more than satisfying the requirements of our Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline|general notability guideline, and far exceeding the sort of "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" which #NEWS describes as "not sufficient basis for an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: ec) More than enough significant coverage in reliable sources for verifiability and notability. #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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The article is well written – well sourced and covers a otability|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 ensorship|Censorship which is indeed notable not only as it pertains to just this piece but the foundation of Wikipedia.  Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:C)

Comment: I don't agree with the nominator that it's non-notable. It might fade into obscurity as time passes (or it might not) but  states "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: I can see the arguments for retaining this, as it is the event that is notable, so it meets the general notability guideline. It doesn't meet  as this is a wider controversy than the Essjay controversy, and this could have wider repercussions regarding Internet censorship. Yes, I know we should |avoid self-references, but this has gone well beyond that. This may not be as ephemeral as we think. This issue, regarding the supposed nanny state of the United Kingdom has garnered much international attention, so you could say it can be kept on that reason alone. However, this is not |original research, and |consensus seems to suggest that people keep the article here, having read through fully. This is one case where we should |use common sense, and keep it anyway, regardless of our emotions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ASR||WP:NOR||WP:CCC||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: We're covering its appearance in RS's.  Don't tell me after the fiasco in and around the recent U.S. Presidential Election that #NEWS has any real teeth against something like this--tons of things more ephemeral have articles and have been kept precisely because they were covered in RS, like this is. Hmm, looks like  to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:SNOW)

Comment: Nomination is a y example of bad faith nominating if I ever saw one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)