Deletion of 2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey

Comment: with Government_censorship_of_Wikipedia#Turkey and Internet censorship in Turkey. The Russian and Chinese blocks generated just as much controversy, and they aren't afforded a standalone article. Likewise, we don't have an article on the YouTube ban, which probably affected more people anyway. There simply isn't enough raw material to warrant a  from the main censorship article. , , etc
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NAVEL)

Comment: with Censorship in Turkey#Internet censorship per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Internet regulation in Turkey per . If this ends up having lasting media coverage on its own, and not just as part of broader coverage on censorship in Turkey, then a standalone article can be created when that is established
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: with Government censorship of Wikipedia and Censorship in Turkey&nbsp;per  - especially per "''Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events''". Individual country, albeit a large one, blocking Wikipedia should be a section in the relevant article. Should this develop to a major, enduring state of affairs that has major effect on the millions of Turkish Internet users, it '''might''' eventually merit its own article but it will take time for such state of affairs to develop. At this point, the block might as well be reversed the next week. And anyway, in semi-suppressive regimes like Turkey the technical know-how to circumvent blocks usually comes rights on the heels of such "administrative measures", so I am on the whole quite sceptical if it will have any enduring effect on most Turk Internet users' everyday life; Turkey has blocked social media sites etc. before. As such, rising this ''one'' block above many others as standalone article seems 'y, as at this point its ''enduring notability'' is undemonstrable and wholly speculative
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NAVEL)

Comment: to Internet regulation in Turkey and Government censorship of Wikipedia, and '''Redirect''' to the former. Insufficient indication of lasting significance. That it's covered in the news right now is not sufficient reason to keep (, ). Especially given there are several other articles in which this can be covered, it doesn't seem like there's call for a stand-alone article. &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N)

Comment: Per  will censorship still be relevant in 10 years? Unfortunately the answer will likely be yes.  says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" so that supports inclusion aswell. This is not original reporting but based on high quality sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: for now - it's easier to describe the evolving situation in a separate article. We can always merge later when it turn out to have no staying power. Realistically, #2 is dead, anyways - I know that I go to Wikipedia to get comprehensive coverage of most significant news events
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)