Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Filtering

:{{la|Anti Filtering}} ([{{fullurl:Anti Filtering|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Filtering}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Noble goal. but unencyclopedic. If this was turned into a list of anti-filtering technologies (which I thought it was when I proded it) I'd be more inclined to keep it, but I still worry that list would be arbitrary and a howto. As this is now, it's both of those, plus not an encyclopedia article. Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note. People may want to check that list of countries. For example, the UK does not have "widespread Internet blocking". I doubt the US, AUS or NZ do either. Similarly, Germany and Ireland are unlikely to fall into this category. I've removed UK, but others may want to remove their own country. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently PoV (that all censorship is bad), + Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, + Inaccurate. New Zealand has just released a new proposal for filtering. The only target is content which is illegal in the country, i.e. child pornography. [http://thomasbeagle.net/2009/07/09/nz-internet-filtering-faq/] dramatic (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Filtering||}}

• Delete This is on the edge of WP:SOAPBOX. It is clear that this article's objective is to bypass filtering infrastructures. Wikipedia is not a how-to web site. Groink (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.