Deletion of Denial of Soviet occupation

Comment: or ''very aggressively re-write''.  Despite |improved |sourcing, it is still a |POV fork, filled with |wild claims, which violates |WP's core principles.  Finally, quite frankly, I am shocked by the log-rolling that has allegedly happened here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:V||WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:5P)

Comment: As nominator very well knows, it is a total rewrite where issues described in previous AfD are addressed. Article is very well sourced, and follows  guideline by also describing contradicting viewpoints. Article contains no original research, but  is annoying to a well-known group of Soviet supporters, who try to get this article deleted no matter what, only reason being . Validity of the topic cannot be questioned, as shown by multitude of sources. Also, nominator should be reported for gross personal attacks, knowingly promoting lies and ethnical hatred
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: A very real and noteworthy topic, which deserves to be presented encyclopedically. The admitted issues with POV, style and perhaps inappropriate syntheses of sources are no reason to delete an article, rather to ''improve'' it. The fact that a handful of editors apparently |prefer that the entire issue not be mentioned at all is hardly a valid rationale for outright deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The general topic is all right, but the "denial phenomenon" just does not merit its own article. As stated, calling the Soviet occupations of various countries a "liberation" is a minority opinion everywhere outside Russia. Even if the article's neutrality is improved (which is already unlikely in itself, the topic being as much of a flamebait as any stupid ethnic debate), it has zero chance of ever meeting . The encyclopedic part of the information in there should go into Foreign relations of Russia, Occupation of Baltic states, and possibly elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: WP:COATRACK|coatrack synthesis. I waited with the vote thinking that the article will be reasonably fitted to wikipedia rule. The creators once again genuinely fail to understand the  policy. Someone starts with ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denial_of_Soviet_occupation&oldid=159677475 juicy personal essay, and then after improvements under the pressure the artcle turns into a weird cactus. While the correct way for a historical article is to start with |solid, scholarly sources and then expand the topic with newspapers and what not. Right now whole article is a complilation of supporting statements and  '''not a single quootation''' that discusses the "soviet occupation denial" '''as a phenomenon''' or "a point of view" as the article says. Any new content absent in other wikipedia articles (not so much of it: 2-3 short paragraphs) may be safely merged by the contributors into "Soviet occupations" article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:RS)

Comment: my argument is essentially CSD G4 and . This was not deleted in such a way that encourages recreation. The rationale given was: "The result was Delete. A whole bundle of unconvincing arguments here, on both sides, but ultimately this is a classic POV fork, and it's also original synthesis. While there are plenty of "references" provided, the vast bulk of them are irrelevant to this term's notability and significance, and have been strung together to constitute a POV synthesized narrative." POV forks and synthesis are not welcome on an encyclopaedia. I speak as someone whose own relatives were oppressed under one such occupation government (Czechoslovakia) so I have some sympathy for the topic, but the atmosphere surrounding the creation and promotion of this article is too polluted to generate a consensus amongst users which would point to a constructive way forward
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: 1) A Google phrase search, google:"Denial+of+Soviet+Occupation", yields just eight results, including two here at Wikipedia.  This is a non-notable neologism, unlike google:"Holocaust+denial", which yields more than a million hits.  (2) This article was created as a , to push a nationalistic agenda, in violation of  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NPOV||WP:POINT)

Comment: this is a  and re-creation of a deleted article (which already warrants it for speedying
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: as a synthesized |original research article. Looking through the related articles it clearly is a POV fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: IF, as the article states, the topic is indeed an official position of the Russian Federation then this is certainly encyclopaedic and not necessarily .  In this case it could be improved and uncluttered (start by removing all those tags next to the references) but there's no reason the casual browser should not hear of it in an encyclopaedia. If on the other hand, it can be shown that this is not an official position of the Russian Federation then I will consider it a POVFORK and change my vote
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)