Deletion of No Gun Ri Massacre

Comment: This article is about the mass killings July 26-29, 1950 rather than the village itself. This incident satisfies , with many books and articles written about it. Having an article about a notable mass killing is not a "POV fork," any more than the article Malmedy massacre is a POV fork of  Malmedy, or My Lai Massacre is a POV fork of My Lai, Vietnam. The article No Gun Ri is specifically about the place, which existed before the killings took place. Wikipedia convention assumes notability for every documented village or hamlet.  Arguments about whether to call it a "massacre," an "incident," or a "battle" (like the Battle of Fort Dearborn) should take place on the talk page of the article, but "No Gun Ri massacre" looks like most appropriate title, since Google Books has https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22no+gun+ri+massacre%22&num=10#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=J6uv-1SDy1vlCU_nXbP3gQ&ds=bo&pq=%22no%20gun%20ri%20massacre%22&cp=31&gs_id=1ji&xhr=t&q=%22no+gun+ri+massacre%22+-wikipedia&pf=p&safe=off&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22no+gun+ri+massacre%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ff49a4a0cb645951&biw=1280&bih=861 726 results for "No Gun Ri massacre, https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22no+gun+ri+massacre%22&num=10#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=J6uv-1SDy1vlCU_nXbP3gQ&ds=bo&pq=%22no%20gun%20ri%20massacre%22%20-wikipedia&cp=19&gs_id=207&xhr=t&q=%22no+gun+ri+incident%22+-wikipedia&pf=p&safe=off&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22no+gun+ri+incident%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ff49a4a0cb645951&biw=1280&bih=861 310 for "No Gun Ri incident", https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22no+gun+ri+massacre%22&num=10#hl=en&safe=off&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22no+gun+ri+killings%22+-wikipedia&oq=%22no+gun+ri+killings%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...38785.39999.3.41548.8.8.0.0.0.0.89.595.8.8.0...0.0.lmG82r4FAqQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ff49a4a0cb645951&biw=1280&bih=861 35 for No Gun Ri killings" and https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22no+gun+ri+massacre%22&num=10#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=J6uv-1SDy1vlCU_nXbP3gQ&ds=bo&pq=%22no%20gun%20ri%20killings%22%20-wikipedia&cp=20&gs_id=3sh&xhr=t&q=%22battle+of+no+gun+ri%22+-wikipedia&pf=p&safe=off&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22battle+of+no+gun+ri%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ff49a4a0cb645951&biw=1280&bih=861&bs=1 zero results for "Battle of No Gun Ri". The argument that most Google search results for the place name return results about the massacre is unconvincing as a reason why No Gun Ri should be about the killings and not the village. Merger is inappropriate.  Talk:No Gun Ri shows no consensus for the  move or merger several years ago by the nominator of this AFD several years ago to make No Gun Ri be about the killings
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: well written article on a notable topic that passes  and , so clearly not going to be deleted. I've offered to discuss the article title in more depth, but there has not been any further discussion from Kauffner on that. For the record; No Gun Ri makes little sense as that is a location, a little distance from the event to which it lends its name. I personally am apathetic about whether we use "massacre", "killings" or "incident" but a) there is no problem with using a controversial term if that is the  and b) massacre seems to edge out the other terms in scholarly coverage. The correct process here would have been  or some form of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT||WP:COMMONNAME||WP:RM||WP:RFC)

Comment: per other keep arguments. Although it is not supported by further argument or examples, the nomination contends that this article is POV. A good closer should ignore unsupported assertions; nevertheless I will address the contention of POV directly, by quoting  : "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." There is a more specific section somewhere about not removing material that can be seen as detrimental to a person or organization but is cited by sources, I think it might be in the  somewhere
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:BIO)