Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel: Moreover, this is a collection of supposed "denials" which goes against WP:Original research.  And finally, the sources cited are mostly low-quality, such as Hindustan Times, Jewishnews.co.uk, and Radar Online.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 10:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 6 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 10:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Military , Israel ,  and Palestine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I have not found any RSes providing significant coverage of denials of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel as a phenomenon.  Rather, the bulk of what's been reported (and what is cited here) are routine news stories about Hamas itself denying it had killed civilians (which is not really a topic that needs its own article).  There's no need for an article just to list every time a Hamas spokesperson or conspiracy theorist (e.g., Piers Corbyn ) says something bad.  Giving what he said or what a Yale student publication did (or did not do) the same weight as what Queen Raina said is absurd.  This article is (and will continue to be) an amalgamation of OR , using poor quality sources alleging antisemitism or misquoting sources to allege that particular people have denied atrocities in Israel (see, e.g., the talk page discussion about the Queen Raina quote).  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on several policy grounds.  Merge to Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (see below for !vote change, but all the reasons for this article to not exist are still valid).  First, the article as presented cannot escape WP:NPOV problems as long as it focuses on only one side's denials.  Atrocities against civilians are happening daily from all possible sides of this horrific and senseless conflict.  In a few years, a good article can be written about denialism in general for this conflict, but that brings us to the second problem, WP:TOOSOON .  Lastly, this is pure WP:SYNTH at this stage.  There is no scholarly discourse (yet) about denials as a group or collective concept , though there might eventually be as denialists on all sides pile on with the spin.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Merge based on superb suggestion from BlakeIsHereStudios (see timestamp 17:53, 16 November 2023).  The Disinformation article can be (and still is, more or less) NPOV; it has a far less incendiary / POV-pushing title; solid RS support that article; and there is already scholarship building around that concept, whereas this one has little more than a collection of one-off denials.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this is simply not a significant viewpoint.  JDiala ( talk ) 00:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve.  There are a lot of people in the west who deny that it happened.  I think the article has merit but should be improved.  TimeEngineer ( talk ) 09:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Similiar to Holocaust denial, and is covered by reliable sources such as [1] , [2] , [3] .  Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk ) 09:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Denials are flying in all directions, of course.  That does not make an WP:OR aggregation of news about disparate denials of this, that or the other suddenly its own topic when there is no indication that it is.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 11:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A phenomenon that, unfortunately, receives wide media coverage.  Eladkarmel ( talk ) 16:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm aware that the phenomenon is new, but certainly withstands WP:NOTNEWS criteria with nearly one month-long coverage by sources and has wide coverage with Israeli government acting specifically against denial in an organized way (screening of event videos and recording accounts by survivors).  GreyShark ( dibra ) 18:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More sources that exclusively deal with the denial of the incident are available now - UtoD 18:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source is routine coverage.  I agree the second source could establish notability, but that's just one source.  Fox News is not reliable for politics per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fox news citation was replaced by The Guardian.  [4] Marokwitz ( talk ) 13:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep references include The Economist, The Guardian, CNN, and Times of Israel, and the Jerusalem Post.  And the IDF is directly talking about it.  𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 23:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "And the IDF is directly talking about it." - makes it less credible surely?  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 13:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not discussing credibility, we're discussing notability.  𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 19:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom.   There is very little in what amounts to credible coverage.  Additionally, it's not really encyclopedic and these types of articles lead to a good deal of subjectivity and become battlegrounds.   Some of the sources seem to be circular (source A says it, then source B and C say it based on source A's reporting), which doesn't portend significant coverage.   I would encourage ! voters to review voorts's lists of sources below.   Also, per @Last1in, pure WP:SYNTH at this stage.  There is no conversage (yet) of denials as a group or collective concept - it's not really anything other than media coverage of who said what at this point.   It's not a "thing" (like holocaust denial is).  Butler Blog ( talk ) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Reliable sources.  Zanahary ( talk ) 17:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Source quality is terrible, material is a WP:SYNTH collection of anecdotal WP:NEWS examples of largely individual acts of denial, with little to no analysis of the topic cohesively as a subject, and even if such a topic were to exist, it would need to reflect both sides of this conflict to be WP:NPOV , not be totally one-sided.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Strike out double vote, you only get one vote.  Why you would put this in the middle of the discussion in any case?  // Timothy :: talk 20:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whoops.  Lost track there, but strike the vote, not the comment.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per numerous commenters above: the article is pure WP:SYNTH and it's not evidently notable based on sources of acknowledged reliability.  Certain content from the article could be merged into other articles about the war, maybe, if it's sufficiently reliable.  If we open the door to this type of article in this subject area, don't be surprised to see a dozen articles pop up with titles like " Denial of atrocities during Operation Protective Edge ", " Denial of atrocities during Operation Cast Lead ", " Denial of Israeli atrocities during the Second Intifada " etc.... (actually, come to think of it, if there's notable commentary on any of these topics, they could make for worthwhile articles in any event).  WillowCity (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Could be a good article in a few years, but as of today its just a list of "This person said" statements.  Furthermore some statements like one by Queen Rania of Jordan or about Yale news mentioned in the article dont even qualify as denial.  F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Well sourced and documented by several sources.  Definitely worth keeping since it's a phenomena that also holds historical value in conjunction with the rise of Fake News and the information Era.  Indeed it has also been attributed to be a major factor in the rise of anti-semitism and is also crucial in understanding the Israeli response.  There are ample sources to support this, this is an historical phenomena that is also highly reflective of the current progression regarding the War on Information and the digital Era, therefore this is an article of high interest and high potential.  Homerethegreat ( talk ) 09:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources are you referring to that has discussed this as a phenomenon?  So far, I've only uncovered this Haaretz article .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] • Delete in agreement with what has already been said above about naming this as a definitive trend and the quality of source issues.  numerous articles exist on Wikipedia where people can learn about current events and political responses and it does not make sense to me based on all that I have read on this topic to carve this out as a separate phenomenon and article, at least not at present without appropriate secondary analytical sources rather than a "this person said" list of statements, which would seem to me to reflect Original Research.  Jackie.salzinger ( talk ) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Anadolu Agency Per WP:RSPS .  Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Example of Hamas denial.  ✘ No CNN Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Example of Hamas denial.  ✘ No CNN 2 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Example of Hamas denial.  ✘ No Washington Institute 1 ?  Organization is associated with AIPAC.  Organization associated with AIPAC and therefore not sufficient to establish notability in this context (see WP:BIASED ).  ✘ No The Economist Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Example of Hamas denial.  ✘ No Radar Online Self-described as "the most influential and trusted pop culture, celebrity and entertainment news brand in the world" and no clear editorial standards.  Tabloid-style coverage of an interview with a Hamas leader.  ✘ No Hindustan Times Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon, and is being used in a misleading way (see talk page discussion ).  ✘ No Daily Beast ?  Per WP:DAILYBEAST .  Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon, and is being used in a misleading way (see talk page discussion ).  ✘ No Ynetnews ?  Unclear whether there are editorial standards.  Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Just another example (Knesset member).  ✘ No Jewish News ?  Unclear whether there are editorial standards.  Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Just another example (Piers Corbyn).  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  JPost 1 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Just another example (Piers Corbyn).  ✘ No Times of Israel 1 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Just another example (Roger Waters).  ✘ No JPost 2 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Does not even establish that anyone is intentionally denying any atrocities.  ✘ No The Guardian Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.  ✘ No Fox News Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS .  Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.  ✘ No JPost 3 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.  ✘ No Times of Israel 2 Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.  ✘ No CBC Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Merely establishes that the Israeli government wants to counter what Hamas has said and change the narrative around the conflict.  ✘ No Rep McCaul statement Statement by Member of Congress.  Does not establish that denial of atrocities is a notable phenomenon.  Political statement made for political purposes.  ✘ No Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Strong association with Netanyahu and his government.  Associated with Netanyahu / biased and therefore not sufficient to establish notability in this context (see WP:BIASED ).  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Source assessment table: prepared by User:voorts Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Haaretz ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Here is my source assessment.  Most of the sources cited are examples of either Hamas or random people denying particular atrocities (or denying things that were later debunked , like babies being decapitated).  Of the sources cited in this article and this discussion, only one establishes GNG.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Solid effort voorts.  One point to add is that even the Haaretz article doesn't make claims that for example Queen Rania was engaged in some sort of "denialism".  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Subject is discussed widely, e.g. [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [], [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] .  // Timothy :: talk 16:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since I don't want to do another chart: #11 is not independent because it's reporting on the position of the Israeli government.  #13 (Spiked) is a very biased op-ed.  #17 is also an op-ed by a former Israeli government official.  The remainder of the sources have either been dealt with in the table above or are reporting on specific instances of denial (or instances of actions being construed as denial, e.g., protests against the war), but do not identify "Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" as a phenomenon.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Reliable sources per above.  I don't think this is OR either although the title is quite unwieldy.  Swordman97 talk to me 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Voortz.  WP:GNG is not met and people are mischaracterizing the sources.  Flip and Flopped ツ 15:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war : Apart from the arguments others have made, this article is a violation of WP:NFRINGE .  Parham wiki ( talk ) 10:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you elaborate in what way is it a violation of WP:NFRINGE ?  Marokwitz ( talk ) 13:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Marokwitz : The opinions of Hamas and others (ie Israel is lying, they were not civilians) are fringe theories.  Parham wiki ( talk ) 20:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, but what 'violation' did you found?  The policy mostly warns about using  proclamations of fringe theory adherents (in this case, the opinions of Hamas and others) when determining notability, I don't think this is the case here.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even though I am for deletion, I agree that NFRINGE does not apply here.  NFRINGE doesn't mean we can't write articles on fringe positions.  It means that we can't write articles about fringe theories based solely on the positions of those advocating a fringe theory.  The argument for keep here has been that the fringe position (denial of events during the October 7 attacks) is notable as a phenomenon.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I fully expected to argue to keep based on the title, but the sources presented are insufficient, and I'm unable to find better ones.  The sources presented thus far (I checked most of them) are either individual examples of denialism, or of representatives of the Israeli government describing what they see as a broader phenomenon of denial.  Israeli government sources are primary sources, regardless of what you believe about their reliability; and Wikipedia cannot synthesize individual examples into a general phenomenon, even if there's enough sources for individual editors to conclude there is a pattern.  Really, this is a case of TOOSOON; a year or two from now there will be published scholarly material analyzing depictions of this conflict in the news media and in the popular imaginary; once those sources are written, this sort of topic can certainly be explored in an encyclopedic manner.  But even before that, we need reliable secondary sources saying in their own voice that this is a pattern, and AFAICS we don't have those.  Vanamonde ( Talk ) 22:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge per Voortz.  Loki ( talk ) 22:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Homerethegreat.  \\ Loksmythe // ( talk ) 22:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Similiar to Holocaust denial, and is covered by reliable sources.  We could revisit removal in future months, but considering the short amount of time having passed, the quantity of reliable sources warrants inclusion.  Drsruli ( talk ) 01:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per  Timothy, Homerethegreat, and others.  Jweiss11 ( talk ) 22:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Homerethegreat.  -- Omnipaedista ( talk ) 20:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per voorts and others.  - Ïvana ( talk ) 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG , wide and persistent coverage of the denial and the discussion surrounding the denial in reliable sources, just a few examples: [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] .  Note that many above arguments are invalid  since content does not determine notability, per WP:ARTN .  The might be a case for renaming the article, though.  Marokwitz ( talk ) 12:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The argument isn't that the content included in the article makes the topic not notable.  The argument is that the articles being cited for notability don't define a phenomenon of denial occurring, but rather report on particular instances of people denying a wide variety of things (or, in some cases, making statements that don't actually deny anything but are being construed as denial), and that combining those sources to establish notability is OR .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, #24 is reporting on a statement by the Israeli ambassador, which is not an independent source for purposes of notability.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war .  It's been covered by reliable sources but I think the page would work better as a section on the page about disinformation on the war instead.  BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk ) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question: Does it make sense to merge Holocaust denial into an article called Disinformation in the Second World War ?  Those seem to be different topics ...  This article is about historical negationism and not about "disinformation in the war".  Marokwitz ( talk ) 20:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Strongly oppose merging, they are two different topics, albeit related.  Per WP:SUMMARY it should be briefly summarized in Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and the reader directed this article.  The above refs I listed show their is ample material and sourcing to support a stand alone article.  // Timothy :: talk 21:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is not a significant viewpoint.  Combefere ★ Talk 02:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, particularly Homer and Timothy.  The Kip 03:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not a good sign when the source assessment comment includes a denial of a Hamas atrocity.  Keep , clearly notable topic, covered by sources.  -- Yair rand ( talk ) 09:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Yair rand : What did I deny? voorts ( talk / contributions ) 14:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Voorts : I was referring to the beheadings, which have been confirmed . ("An international group of forensic pathologists also have confirmed babies were found decapitated, though it's unclear if that happened before or after death.") Sorry for the unnecessarily confrontational tone. -- Yair rand ( talk ) 20:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Yair rand : No worries.  I didn't find your tone confrontational at all.  And to be clear, the articles being cited were about people questioning the beheadings right before the Biden administration and others admitted there was no evidence of beheading of babies at that point in time.  I wouldn't call questioning an unproven assertion denialism.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Notable and shares similarities with Holocaust denial .  JoseJan89 ( talk ) 09:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  There is no lack of participation here but I also don't see editors who advocate Keeping this article address voorts's persuasive source analysis tables.  I don't think anyone is denying that sources exist that provide examples, at least to someone, that a denial of atrocities may be happening in statements made by individuals or organizations, the question is whether or not this article is OR and whether  "denialism" is being discussed as a notable and coherent concept on its own.  There is a huge amount of literature on Holocaust denialism and an academic study of that subject and so a comparison can't be made to this very recent phenomena.  I'd like to see editors arguing to Keep this article go beyond WP:ITEXISTS statements and address the problems pointed out by the nominator.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per voorts, and merge the relevant info into Misinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war .  Can anyone give a reason why this can't be covered at the parent article?  THat article still has room to grow.  VR talk 04:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per voorts and Vanamonde ( we need reliable secondary sources saying in their own voice that this is a pattern, and AFAICS we don't have those ). — Alalch E. 09:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Timothy, Homerethegreat, and others.  With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 01:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per voorts, invented topic without any sourcing discussing it as a topic whatsoever.  nableezy - 02:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per voorts.  Tryin to make a change :-/ 12:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - definitely per WP:GNG , wide and persistent coverage of the denial and the discussion surrounding the denial in reliable sources: [28] , [29] , just two examples.  GNG has been met.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 10:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It should be deleted- I believe so-- because we can create many (extra) other similar articles if we want to keep such denial...  Ali Ahwazi ( talk ) 14:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel .  Maybe this topic will become notable in the future, but as it stands now, this page probably doesn't have enough material to stand on it's own.  XTheBedrockX ( talk ) 23:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided by Timothy.  Yes, the atrocities have been denied by Hamas itself and many others.  There is a significant coverage of this in RS, which makes this denial highly notable.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 05:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This continues to be actively discussed in the media, which clearly shows this is a notable topic.  A few more to add to the above: [30] , "In the wake of global silence and denial of Hamas’ sexual violence against Israeli women, efforts are being made across multiple echelons to raise awareness, including a civil commission to document the crimes, international diplomacy, and a campaign by tech industry executives" [31] , "Global women’s rights groups silent as Israeli women testify about rapes by Hamas" [32] , "UN and Women’s Groups Ignore or Deny the Systematic Rape of Israeli Women by Hamas" [33] , "Deborah Lipstadt struck by ‘speed and intensity’ of Hamas atrocity denial" [34] , "World's denial of Hamas's massacre of Israelis is a betrayal" You can disagree with the point of view or the conclusions of the above but it is clear this is a notable topic being discussed widely in the media.  // Timothy :: talk 06:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a single one of these seem to be a reliable source.  Tryin to make a change :-/ 10:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention none of them deal with the topic exactly; they are quotes.  Read WP:Notability.  Makeandtoss ( talk ) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What you need are sources treating "denial" as the topic itself, not giving examples of individuals denying something.  That is how you demonstrate a notable topic, not one that is attempted to be put together through SYNTH.  The Haaretz piece comes closest, but its just one news article.  But you need sources that treat this topic as a topic, not just discussing individual examples so that Wikipedia editors can try to invent a topic by combining things that never refer to the overarching topic.  nableezy - 14:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh no, providing individual examples of denial (per the sources above) is fine, just as it is fine on pages like Armenian genocide denial or Holodomor denial .  There is absolutely no requirement that every source must be exclusively or specifically on the subject of the page, treat the subject as the whole, etc.  It is enough that it says something on the subject of the page.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 20:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there is no source which describes the phenomenon of denial at length, instead of just minor passing details, then it is WP:SYNTH .  There are entire monographs dedicated to Armenian genocide denial and Holocaust denial.  Tryin to make a change :-/ 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, of course, there are no "entire monographs" dedicated to denials of these atrocities yet .  This is because they are current events.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CRYSTALBALL .  Tryin to make a change :-/ 04:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No it is not, and no user who has read and understands WP:SYNTH , much less WP:GNG , would say such a thing.  The topic is what must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  You can say "oh no", but you are quite wrong.  And this is basic English.  nableezy - 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To continue my source review (don't feel like doing a table): 30 reads like an op-ed and mentions denialism in passing.  31 is largely about what groups haven't said, not what they are saying.  32 is a DAILYBEAST op-ed.  33 is an article about the claims of a US government official, which is not independent in the conflict and thus not independent for notability purposes.  34 is another op-ed, and includes what Queen Rania said as an example of denialism, which as I've discussed above, it was not, making me question its reliability or ability to treat facts in an unbiased manner.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Editorials" and opinion articles can used on WP pages per WP:V , especially if written by experts.  And in many cases they should be used.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but op-eds and editorials are generally not secondary (or arguably independent) sources for purposes of establishing notability.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Put another way, for a topic like "denialism [or historical negationism] of X", one would expect secondary, independent (e.g., scholarly or critical) sources, rather than primary, biased (e.g., op-eds) sources.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Denials exist but pretty sure that denials as a topic per se is just not a thing.  Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Here's more RS (helps that the PA decided to issue a denial of some of the events of that day as well): Guardian , I24 , The Forward , Ynet , Yahoo , in addition to dozens of op-eds published in RS speak of this unfortunate phenomenon.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per @ Nableezy , [W]hat you need are sources treating "denial" as the topic itself, not giving examples of individuals denying something.  That is how you demonstrate a notable topic, not one that is attempted to be put together through WP:SYNTH .  Tryin to make a change :-/ 19:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They do?  Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , what we have now is a collection of WP:OR examples that allows a back-door in to various BLP violations.  I notice that among them are claims of rape denial - but how can we be calling this "denial of atrocities", when the Israeli government itself is still investigating whether rapes occurred?  We are still too close to these events for the full account of what happened to have even been written yet, let alone real secondary sources to have been written about denialism.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete