Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper Abortion
The nomination is based on the premise that ''"multiple editors"'' agree that the article is currently hopelessly POV, and that it is pointless to try to fix this perceived POV problem.  When a topic is supported by verifiable reliable sources that establish it notability, deletion over contributors failing to reach a consensus on a POV version has always been a last resort.  When I checked the talk page for myself I found the discussion the nominator refers to '''is only hours old.'''  In that discussion nominator calls the current state of the article ''"a ridiculous screed"''.  That is not what I found, at all.  I found an article written in the idiosyncratic style of someone who was not a native speaker of English.  I did not detect any attempt to use the wikipedia for a ''"screed"''.  I will remind nominator that ikipedia is not censored.  Nominator's statements on the talk page, and here, give the appearance that his or her objection is to coverage of a genuine real phenomenon -- one they don't like.  I have asserted, over the years, that there is no topic that can't be covered from a neutral point of view, if there are references to support its notability, and good faith contributors willing to make the effort
— User:Geo, 04:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:W (Help:Watchlist)