Deletion of Soviet occupation denialism

Comment: There seems to be some (good faith, AFAIK) misrepresentation of  in the above discussion. Articles should not be deleted on the basis of POV, as there can be instances where there is either no other point of view (try deleting water on the basis that the article only notes that it is a liquid in its natural state), or that there are no reliable third party references for the other point(s) of view. NPOV only states that articles should be written in a neutral ''style'', and that '''all''' germane references are used and ''not'' only those that support a certain position or theory. Since the language of the original title (and some of the proposed alternatives) indicates a bias, and the article presumably follows it,  then the question of NPOV does not arise
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Wikipedia fails neutrality |point of view by deleting this article trying to describe the sentiment of the losers of the "Baltic Liberation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: By far most 'delete' arguments seem to come down to . While the name of the article is somewhat unfortunate, there is no dispute that the content is valid and well cited
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The deletion request is politically motivated and improper attempt to get rid of an article discussing a otability|notable, sourced |point of view necessary to understand a number of current events in Eastern European politics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:POV)