Reason: Fails to meet
WP:GNG, specifically
WP:FAILN. It isn't a political party, but some sort of organisation of parties(?) or alliance of parties after the Donbass election farce. Given that it's unclear as to its significance, and within an unrecognised state, it's
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Considering that the author of the article was sanctioned and blocked from editing any Eastern European related subject for 6 months (
WP:ARBEE), the rationale for creating it is in his head, so there aren't even any further lines of investigation for other editors. If they become notable at some point in the future (
WP:CRYSTAL), a relevant can be created from scratch.
Reason: The entire article is based on
WP:OR with only an allusion to one scholar who doesn't appear to meet with any criteria suggesting that he's notable or peer reviewed (i.e., he has pet theories and has written a paper on the subject).
I fail to see how this article should remain outside of its appeal as being a number of variants on
WP:ITSIMPORTANT and
WP:ITSINTERESTING.
Reason: The article seems to have been created off the back of other diasporic ethnic group articles. There are no
WP:RS for the stub (nor is it even marked as being a stub), and the only connected article with some little sourcing is
WP:Swedish Indians. It is
WP:OR that doesn't meet with
WP:GNG.
Reason: The article is a recreation of
this article which was merged into
Robert Parry (journalist) a couple of years ago. Since then, the Parry article has increasingly been used as a
WP:COATRACK for Consortium news (see article in between clean-ups
here - talk page discussion can be found
here).
The author of the article has never entered into a dialogue about the content, and the article is dependent on
WP:SELFSOURCE and a
WP:BIASED source. Essentially, it remains a coat rack to create credibility for the organisation due to the calibre of articles it publishes (i.e.,
WP:POVPUSH). Per
WP:INHERITORG, Robert Parry may be
WP:N for an investigative journalistic piece in 1985, but that does not make Consortium news a notable news organisation.
Reason: There is nothing on the
PISA web site to indicate that this is their current logo. The image was used for a 2014 conference. This does not make it their official logo.
Reason: Fails to meet
WP:GNG, specifically
WP:FAILN. It isn't a political party, but some sort of organisation of parties(?) or alliance of parties after the Donbass election farce. Given that it's unclear as to its significance, and within an unrecognised state, it's
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Considering that the author of the article was sanctioned and blocked from editing any Eastern European related subject for 6 months (
WP:ARBEE), the rationale for creating it is in his head, so there aren't even any further lines of investigation for other editors. If they become notable at some point in the future (
WP:CRYSTAL), a relevant can be created from scratch.
Reason: The entire article is based on
WP:OR with only an allusion to one scholar who doesn't appear to meet with any criteria suggesting that he's notable or peer reviewed (i.e., he has pet theories and has written a paper on the subject).
I fail to see how this article should remain outside of its appeal as being a number of variants on
WP:ITSIMPORTANT and
WP:ITSINTERESTING.
Reason: The article seems to have been created off the back of other diasporic ethnic group articles. There are no
WP:RS for the stub (nor is it even marked as being a stub), and the only connected article with some little sourcing is
WP:Swedish Indians. It is
WP:OR that doesn't meet with
WP:GNG.
Reason: The article is a recreation of
this article which was merged into
Robert Parry (journalist) a couple of years ago. Since then, the Parry article has increasingly been used as a
WP:COATRACK for Consortium news (see article in between clean-ups
here - talk page discussion can be found
here).
The author of the article has never entered into a dialogue about the content, and the article is dependent on
WP:SELFSOURCE and a
WP:BIASED source. Essentially, it remains a coat rack to create credibility for the organisation due to the calibre of articles it publishes (i.e.,
WP:POVPUSH). Per
WP:INHERITORG, Robert Parry may be
WP:N for an investigative journalistic piece in 1985, but that does not make Consortium news a notable news organisation.
Reason: There is nothing on the
PISA web site to indicate that this is their current logo. The image was used for a 2014 conference. This does not make it their official logo.