Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garadaghly Massacre (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Grandmaster, 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NPOV||WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)