Deletion of Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination)

Comment: Notable well-discussed topic. Seems to be  nomination. Especially ignoring the last AfD less than one month ago
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: claims of POV violation were reviewed and found unsubstantiated by the closing admin in the original AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atomic_bombings_of_Japan_as_a_form_of_state_terrorism which was completed less than 2 weeks ago. The closing admin's decision was upheld at Deletion review only a few days ago. Bringing a deletion nomination on the same basis so soon has as its only basis 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)

Comment: It *just* went through a AfD. Is this going to be nominated non-stop until those who want it deleted get their way (|KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)? There is a widely held view that the atomic bombings of Japan are a form of state terrorism/war crime outside of the US. Seems well-sourced by several academics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)

Comment: Nothing new appears to have been brought to this AfD.  still disallows a complete merge into a mainstream articlea and still recommends the existence of this kind of article provided it makes due reference to the mainstream POV
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: We Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism|went thru this less than two weeks ago, and yet people continue to misconstrue the  and  guidelines, which in fact say this article is perfectly fine. That closure was Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 30|endorsed in DRV. I'm happy to merge this back into one of the two articles it was split from whenever consensus forms as to which one it is; otherwise, I fail to see how making the exact same argument over again will change anything
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK||WP:SS)