Deletion of Garadaghly Massacre (2nd nomination)

Comment: per my own and other arguments advanced in previous AfD regarding the strength of the existing sourcing. I disagree with the assertion that an Azerbaijani source is by nature |primary. Unless we are to assume that all of the sources were literally written by people who were in the village at the time of the assault, by calling all of these sources "primary" we are removing the ability of Azerbaijani media to contribute to the coverage of Azerbaijani events within Wikipedia. As I suggested last time, if there are opposing views on this subject then they should be incorporated within the article. If the concern is objectivity, deleting the article is another and more extreme version of being non-objective
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: mostly per . If you contend the sources are not reliable then we would probably need translations in order to assess them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:NOENG)

Comment: I have changed my !vote above from ''weak keep'' to just plain ''keep''. I was concerned about some of the sources and so started a discussion on the talk page of this AFD to allow those who suggested all 18 original sources were unreliable to substantiate that view. While a number of those 18 sources can and should be removed, I'm not entirely convinced by claims that all are unreliable, as the analysis of each source has demonstrated. The insistence that sources meet our |NPOV policy is not particularly convincing, mostly because we don't require the sources to be neutral, we are required to write about them, cite them and interpret them neutrally, per  (from the same policy). I think such an insistence is a misreading of that policy. A lack of neutrality is of concern, in my opinion, where the sources are biased because of a lack of independence from the subject. Thus, Government sources where the Government is a party to the incident would not be considered independent which is something we require from sources. But there are enough non-Government sources here that talk about the incident, are generally in agreement about some of the facts - when, where, etc - to verify content and can be cited appropriately, in my opinion. I remain slightly concerned about the title. As
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV)

Comment: primarily directed at nominator: Would ''renaming'' the article help to address some of your concerns? I am not sympathetic to the notion of outright ''deleting'' this article, because I remain unconvinced that these sources are all truly |primary, but your arguments regarding how loaded the word "massacre" is are very well-taken, at least by me. I'm unsure what the new name could be (perhaps "Garadaghly Incident"?), but it seems to me that at least some of your concerns are with the word "massacre," and likely with the tone of the article in a few places as well
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)