Deletion of The Europe Trust

Comment: as completely invalid reasons to nominate.  issues are fixed by editing, not deleting, and so are  issues; sources being "behind paywalls" is not a problem (see also , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:BLP||WP:OFFLINE)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: the charity is notable. I see no reason for ; the article is not written with a heavily negative tone. In fact, it is much more un-judgmental than many of the news stories
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: WP:SNOWBALL, as per above.  and  to Nom for inappropirate use of AFD.  POV issues can be discussed on article's talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)