Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Snow keep. The debate is currently whether it should be keep or merge, and I do not see any consensus on the question, but I see strong consensus against delete. The merge discussion should be opened, please continue there, and I close this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey[edit]

2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and NAVEL. Subject fails the WP:10YT. This might warrant a line or two in Media freedom in Turkey. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Add to Nominating statement) Various countries block major websites all the time. Such actions rarely justify individual articles. There is a raft of articles dealing with censorship by country. To the extent that this warrants any mention in the encyclopedia it belongs in the above linked article unless something much more significant comes of this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily WP:NAVEL, Wikipedia is one of the websites with highest traffic in Turkey and similar blocks would be notable for other high-traffic websites (Turkish Wikipedia has a detailed article on the YouTube ban). But it is too early for this article IMHO, so the NOTNEWS argument holds at the moment. There hasn't even been an official reaction from the opposition party to the incident. --GGT (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move it all to Government censorship of Wikipedia. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 15:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be early for an article but it may also be early for deletion... it's a good thing if this Afd can be allowed to run it's full course and not be closed early: we may well have a better idea in a week or two what this is going to amount to. Though Brightgalrs' suggestion strikes me as a good one, per WP:PRESERVE. If the early outcome is to redirect and merge to Government censorship of Wikipedia, that would be fine with me. Several editors have added what is currently a single line at Government_censorship_of_Wikipedia#Turkey. There's room for more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I have !voted below, in a somewhat different way than my above comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge with either Media freedom in Turkey#Blocking of Internet sites, where a long list of similarly blocked sites, some as ore more prominent than Wikipedia, are listed without a specific article about them, or with Internet regulation in Turkey#Impact of the 2014 modifications to the 2007 Internet Act which is currently more brief. I find it very obvious that this article has been spawned despite similar dedicated articles about YouTube, Twitter, WhatsApp etc. not existing due to WP:NAVEL reasons. LjL (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet regulation in Turkey where this warrants a sentence at most. Governments block Wikipedia all the time, and given that Turkey has recently undergone a failed coup and borders on a major war zone the occasional piece of censorship really isn't unusual. Even the Chinese ban(s) on Wikipedia, which had a genuinely significant long-term effect, don't warrant their own article but just get a section in Government censorship of Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 16:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge is also a good option Mardetanha talk 16:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: All over the news now, many articles. Just watched it on BBC television. Why would someone think this article should be deleted? It needs to expanded not deleted! IQ125 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read any of the above comments or the nominating statement? Numerous guidelines and policies have been cited. If you have a policy/guideline argument for keeping this, I'm sure we would all like to read it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No action against A140 motorist who drove into car head on is currently on the front page of BBC News. Do you think we should have an article on that as well? Wikipedia isn't a news ticker; for a subject to warrant an article on Wikipedia you need to demonstrate that it complies with Wikipedia policy, not that you personally find it interesting. ‑ Iridescent 16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. Without any comment from Turkey's gov't for why they did this, this is just another action to note in the above lists (eg it meets WP:V to be incldued on at least two existing topics), but a separate article clearly runs afoul of RECENTISM and NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at worst, merge with either of the two articles above. It's clearly a significant, notable event. Aiken D 16:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 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 (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N). 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. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:10YT will censorship still be relevant in 10 years? Unfortunately the answer will likely be yes. WP:NOTNEWS 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doc James: But nobody is arguing against "censorship still [being] relevant in 10 years". The question is whether this particular incident of censorship is not only notable but notable enough beyond the subjects government censorship of Wikipedia and Internet regulation in Turkey such that it demands its own article (i.e. WP:NOPAGE). Nobody (save, in part, the nominator) has argued to delete (i.e. it's clear there's consensus this should exist somewhere in Wikipedia), but what I'm not seeing (and I'm replying to you but talking to everyone) is a strong argument for this article being kept rather than the subject being kept. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge with Government censorship of Wikipedia and Censorship in Turkey per WP:NOTNEWS - 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 WP:NAVEL'y, as at this point its enduring notability is undemonstrable and wholly speculative. --hydrox (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that I've currently added a link to this article as a 2nd See also at Government_censorship_of_Wikipedia#Turkey for the time being at least. It seems to me there's some crystal-ball-gazing on all sides on what this will or won't amount to. The Guardian has just published this article. I will repeat that the rush to delete is a mistake. On that basis alone I will cast a bolded !vote not to delete, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*That article link is an example of a better place to split. Instead of having a standalone for Wikipedia, have a standalone article for "Internet censorship in Turkey" that is independent of Censorship in Turkey (which is, alas, an increasingly broad topic area) and also I think Internet regulation in Turkey, which is more about the bureaucrats and possibly describes a greater range of actions. The goal here is to chop up the main topic area into convenient chunks, without losing any pieces. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, this is a major event and it should be a standalone article and be linked to from both Censorship in Turkey#Internet censorship and Government censorship of Wikipedia. It could still be merged later if it's not considered a significant event that should have a separate article - I do not see any reason for why it should be hidden and merged before any such and the news are covering this as a standalone event. --Fixuture (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait at least a couple of days. Ziko (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the news coverage has started coming in already, by the time this AFD is up it'll be firmly backed - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; WP:NOTNEWS. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a fact and not opinion and will remain a fact. It should be a living document showing the history of this event for all to see FOREVER. People should realize history records actions and we shouldn't stop or prevent this recording now or ever. ---Bmoshier (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This rant has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Laurdecl talk 01:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore! task a senior wikipedia staffer/editor with dealing directly with the Turkish authorities to lift the ban and also instruct that wikipedia staffer/editor to blog their efforts daily in this article until the ban is fully lifted and an assurance is delivered from their Presidents office that it will not be reapplied Wikimucker (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not understand what Wikipedia is. I suggest taking a look at WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you require a read of WP:TE before you go off on another one. Wikimucker (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So pointing out that we are not here to right great wrongs is now tendentious editing? I missed that memo. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing it out in here is WP:TE the way you are going about it. Your opinion is not worth any more than any other editors opinion at this moment in time. If the block continues then it will become a major worldwide news story in its own right and the development of this news story deserves an article. Wikimucker (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you want this article to be kept and used as a political advocacy tool by a WMF employee? Do you actually have a policy-based reason for your view? Laurdecl talk 01:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will rephrase a tad for clarity. I believe that a senior editor (or 2) should be tasked with editing this article from now on (meaning it is otherwise locked to anonymous editing and editing by non designated editors) and that they should be aware of all efforts made from the WMF side to get this ban lifted and that they should keep the article abreast of these efforts. I have not contributed to the article under discussion and will not do so in future. Wikimucker (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider merging. It is clear that no admin-mediated deletion is required here, but a proposed merge (or even an ad hoc merge, if done correctly) is likely to succeed. The article is simply about a very narrow topic that could fit into another article without trouble. Don't crush it down like a junk car in a press, just give it a section wherever it goes and keep working on it. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, consider future merging once the initial dust has settled. This nomination is much too soon, as it seems quite likely that this event will receive significant global media coverage. Once some time has passed, we will be in a better position to properly assess whether this should be a standalone article, or merged into an existing article. Murph9000 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving media coverage does not exempt a topic from AfD. Quite the opposite actually, per WP:NOTNEWS. Internet censorship occurs in authoritarian countries all the time. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When a state sponsor of terrorism censors its citizens by blocking the 5th-most popular website on the planet, that is an inherently notable event. TheValeyard (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we don't have an article on their blocking of YouTube, more popular, or Facebook, more popular. Censorship is routine in such countries. WP:NAVEL. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per TheValeyard; moreover, since Wikipedia does not accept to censor unliked information (this is not an oversight case), it is not an easily resolvable issue, I doubt that it will suddenly be under the carpet in a few days... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 04:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "censoring", the information will be kept if merged. The issue is whether this article meets WP:SUSTAINED. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurdecl: My comment was about the Turkey government wishes for Wikipedia to censor information they don't like, I did not mean that deleting this article would be censorship. My comment may have been unclear, sorry about that. I meant that we/Wikipedia are not about to censor information they don't like, so the issue is not likely to be over very soon. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. I thought you meant that merging this article would be censorship; my apologies. I agree with you. Laurdecl talk 08:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Murph9000; it is clearly notable and we won't know for a bit if it is mergeable. - Bri (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet regulation in Turkey per WP:NOTNEWS. 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. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above menioned reasons. Jingiby (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, it´s like a new natural disaster or smallish war, sources are plenty and global. If it´s a good idea to merge it in a year or three, do it then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Clear case of merge guys, let's go. GoldenSHK (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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, WP:NOTNEWS#2 is dead, anyways - I know that I go to Wikipedia to get comprehensive coverage of most significant news events. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2017 (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/2017_block_of_Wikipedia_in_Turkey&oldid=1146551584"