Deletion of Massacre of Running Waters

Comment: The concerns about the motivations of the (now-blocked) creator of the article may be valid, but I have to agree with Michael Bendarek here that there's no sound policy-based reason for deletion of this article. While some on the left disagree with some of Blainey's historical views, there is no question that he is a well-respected Australian historian and certaintly isn't someone where we can just disregard his writing. My feeling (in good faith) is that the nom's concerns about the article are really concerns about |ensuring a neutral point of view and could be easily fixed by some edits to the page rather than deleting the article. As Wikipedia requires |alternatives to deletion to be considered first, editing the article to improve it should be the first option
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:ATD)

Comment: The nominator doesn't present any -REASON|policy-based reason. The claim that {{tq|thhis article relies exclusively on claims made by an unreliable source}} is obviously wrong – it cites 6 sources. The nominator's characterization of Ted Strehlow is not supported by his article. Blainey is a highly credentialed prolific author and academic. His views on Aboriginal history, as shown in ''Triumph of the Nomads'' (1975) and subsequent publications, have been described as groundbreaking and sympathetic to Aboriginal people. The article's creator's circumstances should play no role in assessing the article. It is unclear which phrases the nominator objects to, and irrelevant pictures have been removed. It is also unclear how the article {{tq|was created to make Aboriginal Australians look like violent barbarians and play down the brutality of colonialism.}} The nomination the descends into a blatant assumption of bad faith and hypothesis, appealing to evidence of absence, and presenting an unrelated link
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)