Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia
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
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ASR||WP:NOR||WP:CCC||WP:COMMONSENSE (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)