Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Europe Trust


 * 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The Europe Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article written in heavily negative tone per WP:NPOV, making possibly libellous allegations against a legally established organisation, with poorly-referenced allegations against living persons per WP:BLP. The newspaper articles supporting the allegations are all behind paywalls, and the two Times articles in the references carry prominent banners noting that they are the "subject of a legal complaint from The Europe Trust". Norvoid (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Norvoid (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems pretty decent coverage in news articles and books (not all on the page) of the notability of this organisation, if not the actual sections making allegations. JMWt (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:JMWt: yes, I'm not disputing notability. But the article needs a complete re-write, as it's currently an attack article. Norvoid (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's an argument for speedy keep - this is not the forum to highlight that a page needs dramatic improvement, but to discuss deletions. JMWt (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's a borderline argument for speedy delete, for which many of the criteria apply to articles on subjects which are notable but need a complete re-write, for example, blatant spam about notable companies, blatant copyvio, etc. Unfortunately, none of the CSD criteria apply here, so my only option seemed to be to take it to AFD. Notability isn't the only reason for an AFD. Norvoid (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Per JMWt. If it's notable, as the nominator admits, problems need to be corrected through editing, not deletion. If the nominator does not care to do that, s/he should just tag the problems s/he sees in the article and/or place edit requests on the article talk page and let someone else address them when and if someone gets around to it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - no valid deletion rationale provided. AfD is not to fix NPOV issues. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The proponent of deletion appears to be saying blow it up and start over, but it isn't obvious why it needs to be stubbed or blown up. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the charity is notable. I see no reason for WP:TNT; the article is not written with a heavily negative tone. In fact, it is much more un-judgmental than many of the news stories. --Bejnar (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject of the article is discussed in several reliable publications and is therefore notable. Any deficiencies or lack of neutrality in the article should be dealt with by editing and not by deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep'; WP:SNOWBALL, as per above. and WP:TROUT to Nom for inappropirate use of AFD.  POV issues can be discussed on article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as completely invalid reasons to nominate. WP:NPOV issues are fixed by editing, not deleting, and so are WP:BLP issues; sources being "behind paywalls" is not a problem (see also WP:OFFLINE, we don't discriminate on sources based on such things), and obviously the fact that a newspaper has received a legal threat has nothing to do with our article. LjL (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2015 (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.