Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 7 October attacks


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Numerically, we obviously have no consensus.

In terms of arguments, the two sides are mostly talking past each other. The "keep" side insists that the topic is notable, and the "delete" side insists that the content is original research by synthesis and/or a POV fork. The problem is that all of this can be true at the same time.

That being the case, the "delete" arguments are prima facie stronger, because content that is OR or non-neutral violates core policies and therefore still merits deletion even if it is about a notable topic. However, in my view, the "delete" side have not convincingly demonstrated their case that the article's content is so problematic that deletion is the only reasonable option. With a few exceptions (e.g., Aquillion), they only assert that the content is policy-noncompliant, without making an actual argument (based on the article's contents and its sources) to show why it is policy-noncompliant.

Given the numerical split, arguments based mostly on mere assertions are, in my view, too tenuous a basis on which to find a rough consensus to delete.  Sandstein  18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Denial of the 7 October attacks

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article does not deal with a notable subject, merely instances of denial. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment Note that the article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel contains no mention of this.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It does now. Mistamystery (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed your addition as based on a single low quality writeup by someone who is no expert in the Middle East and, additionally, has displayed exceptional bias in her writings. We can't built an encylopaedia on this sort of crap. — kashmīrī  TALK  18:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Wash Po is RS and it’s not an opinion piece. We don’t individually get to decide what is and isn’t a verifiable source or an “expert”. Washington Post does and the Wikipedia community has decided that it is an RS.
 * 2. Please strike your offensive language and revise with more neutral language or it will be reported to admins. Mistamystery (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Page appears to be a collation of anecdotal material alongside some polls, but it does not appear to represent a subject based on secondary analytical sources that seriously discuss it as a cohesive, established topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. There's a body of secondary coverage in RS that seriously discuss it as a cohesive, established topic. These are those which discuss denial as a topic, in addition to many others that discuss instances. Many RS, including those cited in the article use "October 7 denial" to properly encompass the full scale of mendacious claims about what happened that day.
 * * Growing Oct. 7 ‘truther’ groups say Hamas massacre was a false flag
 * * Holocaust denial finds new life in Oct. 7 revisionism
 * * Are conspiracy theories about Oct. 7 a new form of Holocaust denial? Experts weigh in
 * * Denial of Hamas' October 7 Massacre Is Gaining Pace Online
 * * Levin vows to outlaw denial of Hamas atrocities
 * * Anger as Oakland residents defend Hamas and deny 7 October attack at council meeting
 * * Israel shows footage of Hamas killings ‘to counter denial of atrocities'
 * * Queens College president condemns Muslim student group’s denial of Hamas attacks
 * * For most Palestinians, October 7’s savagery is literally unbelievable. Blame the TV news?
 * * US Jewish groups found ‘The 10/7 Project’ to fight denial of Hamas atrocities
 * * '26 million people' view social media posts denying Hamas attack on Israel
 * User:Longhornsg
 * Without doing original research, which of the sources explicitly talk about the so-called "Denial of the 7 October attacks"? -- M h hossein   talk 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is OR -- material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists -- here? Please read the RS, which explicitly cover the topic. If we look at Holocaust denial, to which scholars and researchers are comparing the phenomenon of October 7 denialism, Holocaust denial doesn't only include claims that "the Holocaust didn't happen", but also false claims related to size, culpable party, and method of extermination. A claim that only 300k people died in the Holocaust, would be labeled by scholars and RS as Holocaust denial? Nakba denial does not only explicitly include making the claim that "750k Palestinian Arabs were not uprooted from their homes", but per the WP article, a range of charges that are not denial that the Nakba occurred, including the "denial of a distinct Palestinian identity, the theory that Palestine was barren land, and the theory that Palestinian dispossession were part of mutual transfers between Arabs and Jews justified by war." I guess then only someone denying that the population displacement occurs would qualify? Denial of the 7 October attacks, as RS discuss the topic, includes false claims that the attack on Israel did not occur, it was a false flag operation by Israel, was exaggerated, etc. I'm using how RS discuss the topic, which is what we should go by. User:Longhornsg (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * IF you think there are problems in other articles needing attention from editors, please convey your concerns to the associated talk pages. Then you can go ahead by quoting the portions where the denial is  'explicitly'  covered in a reliable source. -- M h hossein   talk 08:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ??? Between the sources cited here and those already in the article, the topic more than meets GNG Longhornsg (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not how GNG established. The denial of 7 oct attacks should have "Significant coverage" among reliable sources, which is not the case now. Significant coverage is defined as the coverage "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Moreover, WP:VERIFY necessitates the inclusion of "an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material". It means that the insertion of sources which are tangentially related to the topic does not show the general notability. The article currently suffer from WP:SYNTH simply because time should pass so the title receives direct and in-depth coverage by the reliable sources. -- M h hossein   talk 20:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG as shown by Longhornsg --Shrike (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete mainly under the pretense of WP:STARTOVER, if not merge into a subsection of the October 7 attacks page and Holocaust denial. The initial article was essentially an essay citing opinion pieces as facts, and equated justification of the attacks as outright denial of them, along with arguably racist blanket generalizations of Palestinians regarding their support of the attacks. Even the second source in the article - the Times of Israel one - doesn't back up the definitions of denialism listed in the article. While there are some great sources/articles on denialism so far (esp. this WaPo one and this Times of Israel one), even many of the sources stated by Longhornsg mention Oct 7 denialism as the reason for an increase in Holocaust denial.
 * I don't see enough RS available at the moment to keep this page up at the moment. Maybe down the line, whenever the effects of denialism is better studied, sure, but right now the article is scraping the bottom of the barrel for scattered incidents of Oct 7 denial in the news, conflating justification of the attacks with denialism at various points, and every article mentioning large-scale denial of the attacks leads into how that denial is part of a rise in Holocaust denialism. Jebiguess (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

*Keep, per Longhornsg and Zanahary. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jebiguess. If long term, more reputable sources become available discussing in depth denial of the attacks we can remake the page, but for now as said above and on the article talk page there isn't enough there, and the article is heavily breaching WP:NPOV with its comments on Palestinians especially. We can add a paragraph to the October 7 attacks page with the few good sources. CoconutOctopus   talk  21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, preferably using the sources found by Longhornsg. There's no need for it to have its own article at the time, but keep the option of a future WP:SIZESPLIT. As usual, I look forward to the pro-Israel SPAs desperately trying to keep this article around and the pro-Palestine SPAs desperately trying to get rid of it because neither of them are interested in building an encyclopedia. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge as an WP:ATD per Thebiguglyalien. Yeah, all the SPAs are gonna be fun with this one. As for the article, I do think that the sources are good, but for its own article, the content spread feels weak. Conyo14 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Sources 1, 15 and to a lesser extent 8 are about this subject. Rest appear to stretch the truth to suit the narrative... Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not seeing that, 1 is an article from the tech editor about people on the internet linked to Holocaust denial, the second is disinfo about 40 beheaded babies and the third is about a Hamas propaganda document. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jebiguess and WP:TNT. Failing that, merge to a section in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. As it stands, the article clearly breaches WP:NPOV, and, while I can understand why the article creator feels the way they do, they have form for ignoring that policy. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is in a quite different space than how the creator left it. NPOV concerns (please articulate what those currently are) are not a reason for deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a fan of TNT arguments anyways, but the "tipping point" for TNT is if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. Clearly this article does not meet TNT, and its topic meets GNG. Zanahary (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Zanhary says the article meets GNG without explaining why. On the other hand, Longhornsg, who has been cited by multiple editors here, has not shown how the offered sources can be used to reach the WP:GNG. -- M h hossein   talk 09:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which sources meet GNG? Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: as WP:POVFORK, in which the article title and content appears designed to suggest that the facts as presented by Israel regarding October 7 are beyond dispute. There has still been no third party validation of the version of events provided by Israel (e.g. Israel forbids doctors from speaking to UN group investigating Oct. 7 atrocities ) and the Israeli investigation has barely begun (e.g. Israeli Ministers Come Out Against Internal Probe of Army's Conduct on October 7: Israeli ministers lash out at the army chief of staff over team heading the inquiry into the failures surrounding Hamas' assault. 'We are at war, and this is the time you are starting to investigate?' one said ). The facts-and-counterfacts of October 7 are still as we speak being used to justify the killings of a huge number of Gazan people every day, so the well-funded propaganda campaigns are still at their peak and we need to tread very carefully. In time we will know whether it is reasonable or not to "question" the events of October 7, but we are still some way away from that point.
 * For now, views and counterviews should be integrated throughout the relevant articles. See e.g. Criticism.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Plenty of reliable sources discuss October 7 denialism. Just some quick examples, in addition to those provided by Longhornsg.
 * The Washington Post
 * YNet
 * Haaretz
 * Times of Israel
 * Times of Israel
 * The New Statesman
 * Politifact
 * Jerusalem Post
 * Time Magazine
 * Marokwitz (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Look closely at these sources in this list. It is a mishmash of:
 * Conspiracy theories regarding the October 7 attacks, i.e. people suggesting false flag or Israeli prior knowledge / letting it happen]
 * Disputes regarding Atrocities during the October 7 attacks, i.e. whether atrocities were pre-planned, and whether the facts match the Israeli narrative, and
 * Broader articles about the Propaganda during the Israel-Hamas war.
 * These three articles would be clear and delinated subjects and thus useful articles. This current one that we are discussing is a mishmash, which by conflating these three topics creates a significant POV skew. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is about historical negationism related to the October 7 attacks. This term comprises outright denial of the events and conspiracy theories aimed at denying or significantly minimizing the responsibility of the perpetrators. According to a survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), over 90 percent of Palestinians polled believe that "Hamas did not commit the atrocities seen in the videos" on October 7, which is why "Denial of the October 7 attacks" is a notable topic and the subject of intense discussion within reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marokwitz: Just because 70% of polled Americans once believed that Saddam Hussain was behind 9/11, are you arguing that Wikipedia should automatically create an article titled Iraqi involvement in 9/11, focusing on random quotes? — kashmīrī  TALK  20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, an article about 9/11 denial is the correct analogy. That article scope is defined as "a set of overlapping conspiracy theories that dispute the general consensus of the September 11 attacks that a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists had hijacked four airliners and crashed them into the Pentagon and the original World Trade Center Twin Towers, which consequently collapsed. ". Marokwitz (talk) Marokwitz (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What would you make the equivalent summary scope of this article? Then we can decide whether (a) that specific scope is supported by WP:GNG, or (b) how significant would the amendments to the current article content need to be. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marokwitz: It's not a page about historical negationism, because no learned papers or history books yet cover the topic area, let alone historiographical works analysing such works for negationism. Your comment and its misuse of formal terms adds to the sense that what we are seeing here is an attempt to will a topic into existence under the given title when in fact there is no such established topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Additional More examples of notability:
 * Keep. The topic definitely meets WP:GNG. Examples for this claim can be found in Marokwitz's comment. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly notable per reliable sources documented above. That users are disputing the well-documented atrocities even in this discussion is all the more reason why the article is relevant. Sig for original post - Drsmoo (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC), dispute element struck with sig -Drsmoo (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC) unstruck with sig -Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/opinion/hamas-violence-women-israel.html - “But even as evidence mounted, so did disbelief. On social media, accounts often flood mentions of Hamas’s gendered violence with arguments that no such thing happened… Denials and deflections have come from people with vast reach. Some work at prominent magazines; others run popular podcasts, YouTube channels and websites. These denials have migrated into global leftist discourse and seem intended to sow doubt or prompt wholesale dismissal of the subject.”

https://www.haaretz.com/0000018d-7370-dd6e-a98d-f7722dc00000 - “The denial of mass rapes, substantiated by reams of evidence including from Hamas, has become a consistent pattern at Bay Area public meetings.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2024-01-04/ty-article/.highlight/you-wont-free-palestine-by-denying-hamas-raped-israelis/0000018c-d582-ddba-abad-d7a3d6510000 - You Won't Free Palestine by Denying Hamas Raped Israelis

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-denials-of-hamas-oct-7-atrocities-spreading-like-a-disease/wcm/2fd96ba1-7568-4291-9874-9e02948daf2a/amp/ - “Denying the horrors of Oct. 7, that is. The sexual violence committed against Israeli women and girls, as well as the utter brutality of it all — the burnings, the beheadings, the torture, and the cold-blooded murders. That is the new denial.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-27/ty-article-opinion/exposing-max-blumenthals-deceptive-claim-israel-is-responsible-for-most-october-7-victims/0000018c-102f-d65f-a7dd-f0ff7b550000 - "Max Blumenthal, the editor of The Grayzone website, wrote a piece on October 27 that can only be described as a master class in manipulation. His article provided the basis for the now widespread conspiracy theory denying that Hamas murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-04/ty-article/.premium/how-media-outlets-like-haaretz-are-weaponized-in-the-fake-news-wars-over-israel-and-hamas/0000018c-3076-d15f-a7af-b27664390000 - "According to the BBC’s Sardarizadeh, the denialist narrative that “it was Israel that killed its own civilians on 7 October, not Hamas,” has become appallingly widespread online." Drsmoo (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

https://forward.com/news/570511/deborah-lipstadt-hamas-attack-denial/ - "While few people deny that any attack by Hamas took place, some have defended the perpetrators by falsely claiming they were primarily focused on military targets, such as Israeli soldiers. Some have also falsely claimed that the Israeli military itself perpetrated some of the worst massacres. Others have questioned the veracity of reports that some victims were raped or beheaded by Hamas fighters."

Drsmoo (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Where, exactly, in this discussion are users disputing the well-documented atrocities? Be specific, with diffs. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , it's been over 24 hours now, and you still have not provided diffs to justify your accusation that . Would you care to strike that personal attack? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If it’s a personal attack then I’ll strike it, I just don’t see how? How is it derogatory? And if it is derogatory, wouldn’t it only be a personal attack If I directed it towards a person by linking to their diffs? Drsmoo (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You have accused editors of this page of "disputing well-documented atrocities." Nobody actually did that, but you've literally accused people of being denialists of a terrorist attack. Of course that's a personal attack! No, it wouldn't be a personal attack if, and only if, you'd supplied diffs. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Systematic and widespread sexual violence/rape is well attested in highly reliable sources. Multiple users posting in this article’s talk page have not only disputed whether this occurred, they’ve called the reliable sources that investigated it “propaganda”. Drsmoo (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually you need to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". How the sources are called by others is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted or no. That was a comment on other editors -- M h hossein   talk 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again - provide the diffs. Otherwise, your comment is a general attack on all editors who have argued for a deletion or a merge. You've made a general accusation about people in this discussion, and are refusing to back it up. Do so; or apologise and strike your comment. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * EOT. Drsmoo (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now unstruck my comment as the baseless denial of well-established atrocities in this discussion has become explicit. Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * please point us to all of the specific editors and edits against whom your claim is made. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You just posted an article from a biased source based on blogs and a deprecated source falsely alleging that there was no systemic rape by Hamas. There in fact was, as is well documented. Your comments, particularly the ones directed at “mainstream Israelis” are unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide your evidence that that award-winning journalist Jeremy Scahill is biased.
 * And please explain what is unacceptable about suggesting that Channel 13 News hosts mainstream Israeli journalists and politicians?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Intercept is classified as a biased source on Wikipedia. Claiming that the "mainstream" Israelis, who personally experienced the atrocities, dispute them, is absurd. If you're specifically referring to the news, it is also absurd. Even Physicians for Human Rights Israel, who support BDS, report that the widespread rapes occurred. That you found a single biased source and are now going around claiming well documented atrocities didn't occur is offensive. Drsmoo (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nearly every source displays some sort of bias, perspective, or leaning. Nothing wrong with that. What matters for Wikipedia is whether a source is WP:RELIABLE – and The Intercept is considered reliable here.
 * We also don't really care whether a reader finds encyclopaedic content offensive as long as it's correctly sourced and due. — kashmīrī  TALK  23:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, two days ago on this article, you removed the Washington Post, which is not considered biased, by claiming the author was biased. Drsmoo (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete or draftify as WP:SYNTH. In its current form, this article is essentially a collection of press clippings about instances when various people questioned parts or all of the 7/10 attack. The article synthesises these individual views to create an impression that "7/10 denial" is an actual concept or phenomenon, separate from (1) the normal denial of uncomfortable facts, and (2) standard political narrative (no political leader ever says, "we deliberately kill civilians").
 * An encyclopaedic article about denial of something should focus on a well-defined phenomenon, its causes, psychological/sociological mechanisms, explanations, frequency, and so on, based on quality social and psychological studies. Sensational press clippings don't really cut it. For me, the current writeup can only be TNT'ed or, at best, draftified. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong keep As above. Denial is mentioned in the lede of nearly every article on related topics. Drsruli (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Denial is mentioned in the lede, but not in the actual basis. Most sources refer to Oct 7 denial as a rationale for Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep (regular, not weak or strong). Let's start with the undisputed fact that 7 October denial is a thing. Next, based on the impressive amount of sources it should be concluded that is also a notable thing under the GNG. That much is important but still insufficient for a keep. Examing this article in the context of similar articles, it should be concluded that the denial article is a legitimate spinoff of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war. The section and article should be better integrated. I have added a link that will be a first step. As a notable, legitimate, and necessary SPINOFF, this article should be kept. gidonb (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn’t notices that Misinformation article. Having read it there I feel even more strongly about my delete vote:
 * you assert “the denial article is a legitimate spinoff” but provide no rationale.
 * why not call this False flag conspiracy theories regarding the October 7 attacks rather than trying to combine it with other unrelated elements of the dispute? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could introduce you to new information! It's very important to understand information in context.
 * Your question if the name of the article should change relates to my comment The section and article should be better integrated. I was thinking perhaps a rename of the "False flag" conspiracy theories section to "Denial of the 7 October attacks" but hadn't thought this through yet. There are other options. For example, conspiracy theories on both ends. That's common and could be more NPOV. Yet it seems that people just deny these atrocities ever happened, also without conspiracy or false flag theories. That would speak in favor of denial again. In the end, this is an editorial decision that could be debated here or on a talk page.
 * Regarding the rationale or need for having this SPINOFF, it should have been implied above but I'm happy to make it more explicit. Thank you for this opportunity! Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war deals with a wide range of issues that do tie together. These 7 October consparicies/denial are one small topic therein. Since so much has been written on this topic, it is notable under the GNG. Yet who says that it cannot be contained in the parent article? We often merge notable content! People, who know me from other AfDs, know I'm big on that. It's exactly what I meant here: That much is important but still insufficient for a keep. Well, since Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war deals with such a broad range of issues and so much has been written in sources and at WP about these conspiracy theories/denial, we must have a spinoff. The reason is simple: if we would merge the content of Denial of the 7 October attacks into the Misinformation article, WAY TOO MUCH of the content of the misinformation article would be about one type of misinformation and that article would no longer be balanced over the entire range of issues that it covers. Briefly put, we would knock it entirely out of whack!
 * Let me know if I missed anything and if my position now is clear to you. I had read your opinion and saw that you think that the article is a povfork. That would be a concern, however, you did not explain a povfork of what. Maybe something you can elaborate upon (or reconsider) under your own position, so to strengthen your own argument. As explained, I view the article as a SPINOFF, not as a povfork, and a legitimate and even necessary SPINOFF at that. gidonb (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * in summary your three paragraphs say simply "[a merger would mean that] WAY TOO MUCH of the content of the misinformation article would be about [denial]". Let's check that in numbers:
 * Denial of the 7 October attacks - 1122 words, of which about 120 words are generic text about the conflict
 * Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - 4328 words, of which the section "False flag" conspiracy theories is 357 words (8% of the article)
 * So if we were to put this entire denial article into the misinformation article we would be at c.5000 words, of which about 1000 words would be from the denial article (20%).
 * I think 20% is entirely appropriate.
 * By the way, perhaps the best illustration of the real problem with this article is its sentence By January 2024, there was a small, but growing group that denied basic facts of the attacks and spread falsehoods and misleading narratives... An NPOV version of that sentence would instead be ...small groups on both sides either denied basic facts or invented and exaggerated facts regarding the attacks and spread falsehoods and misleading narratives... I.e., as is well documented, there are two sides to the propaganda. This NPOV version fits well into a misinformation article, and is much more consistent with the intentions of Wikipedia as a project.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So for the second part, AFDISNOTCLEANUP but that was only your BTW. Let me get back to you on the merge! gidonb (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So a fifth of the texts just on October 7 denial would be way too much text on this topic, relative to the other misinformation topics and (my actual main line) knock [the article] entirely out of whack!. Please take into account that the misinformation topics still have huge growth poptential and take into account that folks would say that the article isn't balanced between misinformation on the different side of this war. Furthermore, the 7 October denial article will still grow a lot because last Sunday a law passed the Knesset making 7 October denial and support illegal. There is no doubt that this law will pass the Knesset again after committee work. So merge, while I always consider, is not a good option. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Novel, and entirely ridiculous, theory. Selfstudier (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My opinion is not a theory. It's an opinion. Since your response confuses my opinion for a theory, then adds adjectives, then nothing, it's not something that can be answered on the merits. As I always try. Next time, please try to make a point (any) even if you "must" (although it's better not) also share your negative emotions. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I refer to the theory that this is a spinoff from the Misinformation article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's my opinion about where this information fits, yes. Now if I go back to the intro, you compared this information directly to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and ignored the fact that we have a whole range of articles with more detailed information. Very important, as information could have needed to merge there. In fact I did your due dilligence as nominator for you. I checked if there is a place where this should be merged (or redirected) even though there was no serious discussion of such options in the intro. gidonb (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would the closer kindly take note that this editor has removed a properly placed notability tag at the article with the edit summary "being debated" (which i.s of course why the tag was placed to begin with) Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By all means. My edit has been undone. It's a principled position regardless of whether I want to keep or delete. People slack way too many warnings on articles, usually when they want to delete. When I nominate, I remove excessive warnings so there is a good chance for the opposite position to be adopted. The nominator should convince in the opining. There I count just 12 words and a few more in a comment that was later added below. You will not convince by making the debate unpleasant for those who agree to share their thoughts. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For something that is not a thing, not many words are necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Kudos for one correct statement: For something that is not a thing, not many words are necessary. Yet the sources prove that 7 October denial is definitely a thing so then you would already need more words. Arguing that it isn't a notable thing is already a huge stretch. Then again, so are some other debates without merit.


 * More importantly, the combination of your correct statement and your AfD to remove 7 October denial as nonexistent, not nonnotable, indicates that this AfD is an exercise in "7 October denial denial". Someone suggested before that this debate includes 7 October denail. If true, I would call that out. I haven't seen it yet. 7 October denial denial is definately happening here! gidonb (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet the sources prove that 7 October denial is definitely a thing Er no, they don't, they just show that this one and that one (eg Palestinians, Hamas) deny this and that, big deal. Random people disputing stuff does not add up to a real subject, not even close. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strengthens my conclusion that this entire AfD is an excercise in denial denial. gidonb (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Going through these comments here, I think we should start an article titled Denial of the Gaza genocide. Then, in case someone takes it to AfD, we'll be able to repeat some of the same arguments to keep it. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep (Note, I write the article). The topic is widely covered and is based on diverse and reliable sources. As usual, I invite those who think the article is not good enough to improve it.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge in to the main article if anything is salvageable. This is a WP:POVFORK of the main article that relies on a comparative tiny handful of sources to perform WP:SYNTHESIS. Of the sources in the article, only three sources (the Washington Post, ynet, and the Times of Israel) use the word "denial"; the ynet coverage is just a brief note that the Washington Post coverage exists.) Two of these sources are WP:BIASED ones; we cannot base an entire article on just that. Likewise, the sources listed above cover a wide variety of views that can't be easily combined into a single article without synthesis, including conspiracy theories about the attack as a whole; people who deny, downplay, or dispute specific atrocities, which in turn can range from denial of things that clearly took place to disputes over aspects where the truth or magnitude remains unclear; and broader coverage of propaganda on the topic. Few of the sources actually combine this into a singular topic - the lists of sources above reads like a news source for every usage of the word "denial", which isn't a useful base for a Wikipedia article. "Denial" and "denialism" are also extremely strong terms that we'd want high-quality sourcing to back up, with special care to avoid over-reliance on a mixture of sources that leans towards any one bias; right now, most of the sources are recent news articles, many of which are from WP:BIASED sources. When we make sweeping accusations of historical negationism in the article voice or title like this, encompassing a wildly disparate and far-ranging array of totally distinct claims, we want to be absolutely sure we know precisely what the academic consensus is and which views the academic consensus supports describing that way, which in turn requires being extremely specific about what views we're focusing on. None of that is present here, at least not yet. EDIT: Additionally, it's important to point out that while many of the sources presented for this are WP:BIASED, other sources cover disputes over accusations of atrocities and war crimes related to this conflict in a very different way, with roughly equal weight given to accusations and denials by each side. See  Similarly, coverage of conspiracy theories related to the war are not one-sided; see  This supports the idea that this is a WP:POVFORK, titled and written in a way that disproportionately reflects only one side of the coverage of a complex and still-developing topic. --Aquillion (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, and well-worded. Jebiguess (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. asking for deletion with the reason of "merely instances" is not seeing the wood for the trees. TaBaZzz (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the article was about the wood, we wouldn't be here. — kashmīrī  TALK  12:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * of course you wouldn't TaBaZzz (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as discussed by LonghornSG, Zanahary and others, but there are some legitimate concerns about quality which should be addressed appropriately. FortunateSons (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Extremely important topic as per Longhornsg, Marokwitz, Gidonb, Eladkarmel and others. Denying this dramatic event or minimizing the horrendous atrocities committed by Hamas - raping and committing other sexual and gender based crimes, beheading, torturing, burning people alive, mutilating bodies and indiscriminately killing more that 1000 civilians - is similar to denying the Holocaust. Quality is a different issue. GidiD (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We know what Holocaust denial is, we just don't know what 7 October denial is, just something made up. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @GidiD: Before you asserting a position on what is and isn't denial, perhaps you should first get your basic facts straight. The current count of civilians killed in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is 766 – and if you're inaccurate on that lone item of presented quantitative information, I wonder what we should make of your more qualitative assertions. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @iskander323 - indeed 695 Israeli citizens + 71 foreign nationals ( + civil policemen killed, counted as security forces).
 * But what is your main point? Even a "mere" 766 unarmed people, butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc - is not something that should be denied or dwarfed. GidiD (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @GidiD: My point is that precision and accuracy matter, nowhere more than here. It's the difference between material that is encyclopedic or not. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Statements suggesting that ALL or even most of those killed were butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc are exactly the type of rhetoric that has allowed for the killing of 30,000+ others. The level of certainty and precision required on these matters is as high as it could possibly be. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Onceinawhile and Iskandar323 - By all reliable accounts - it was a cold blooded massacre! And I would really want to see your count of the number of assassinated citizens but not killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated... Please be specific if you are so well informed. GidiD (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I defer to WP:SOAPBOX. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * if you show me your count of citizens definitely "killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated", then I will answer your question. I bet you can’t get to even 5% of the total. Politicians and propagandist media encourage us to extrapolate. We must be much more disciplined when others’ lives are at stake. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a single reliable source supports the baseless claims of "propaganda" in the face of Hamas' well-documented atrocities. Propagandist media would be something like The Grayzone, which should never be regurgitated onto wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The debate here shows exactly why WP needs this article: even some well informed editors attempt to dwarf the attocities commited on 7 October; to claim that the indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood was a negligible phenomenon; to deny the usage of sexual crimes as weapon of war. All, in spite of the reliable evidence cited e.g. by Longhornsg and Markowitz and in related articles Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel and 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. GidiD (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To Drsmoo's question, see the Jeremy Scahill article quoted and linked below.
 * To GidiD's comment, no-one has claimed that "the indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood was a negligible phenomenon". This discussion began with GidiD claiming that "[all] 766 unarmed people [were] butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc". GidiD was challenged to verify this and did not do so. Instead in the above comment "butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated" has been turned into "killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood" and "please confirm that it was all 766 civilians" has been turned into "claiming that it was a negligible phenomenon".
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The main reason for the article's deletion isn't because anyone here is outright denying the attacks, it is because the article has extremely shoddy sourcing and can't seem to define how or what denialism is. Not to mention, most links attribute October 7 denial not as a separate entity, but instead as a rationale for an increase in Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Denying any horrible event can be outrageous. But we are an encyclopaedia, not a Sunday sermon. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not the same at all, since claiming the October 7 attacks didn't happen or were a false flag operation is a fringe view not held by any reliable source, while the question of whether a genocide occurred in Gaza is an active debate. Marokwitz (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the current article is not the subject of an active debate if that's what you mean. Selfstudier (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you agree. This is not a debate between reliable sources, as there is clear consensus that atrocities took place, and there is no serious dispute that this was a surprise attack and not a false flag operation. Marokwitz (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant. My point was that a lot of arguments are not based on factual analyses or the existence of the subject, but instead can be summarised as "it's so outrageous that we must keep it". — kashmīrī  TALK  00:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned there may be some shifting of the goalposts here. Just to be clear, you're now stating that the sole topic of the article would be claiming the October 7 attacks didn't happen or were a false flag operation, and that, therefore, disputes over whether specific atrocities took place (in a context where there is no dispute over whether the attacks took place and no conspiracy-theories about false flags) would not fall under its scope, and that sources characterizing that as "denial" could not be used? Most of the sources suggested above, including (at a glance) some you put forwards yourself, are on the latter topic, discussing disputes over specific atrocities rather than the more outright conspiracy theories you mentioned. Would you strike the sources you presented that only talk about "denial of Hamas atrocities" and add a note saying that they're off-topic, would not be used in a hypothetical article, and were presented by accident, then? See my comment above for why this is a particular point of concern - every WP:RS agrees that the attacks took place, and the idea that they are a false flag is certainly a conspiracy theory, but I'm not sure there's enough coverage of those two things for an article. There is certainly not a historical consensus on every individual atrocity allegation, though, as you seem to implicitly acknowledge by shifting your position here to focus solely on two topics of an outright denial that the attacks took place or conspiracy theories that present them as a false flag. I don't think we have enough sources for an article about that, and I don't think it makes sense to combine those two into one article, but I do think that a more tight focus on those two specific things and a hard rule against moving on to more hazy "atrocity denial" until / unless we have overwhelming WP:RS from neutral sources to establish an unambiguous academic consensus would go a long way to assuaging people's concerns about WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and would make it more clear how much sourcing exists for the article's actual two topics as opposed to WP:BIASED sources that may throw around the word "denial" or the concept of historical negationism more glibly than we can in the title or article voice. As an example of why this is a problem, see eg. the claims that Hamas beheaded babies, which most sources treat as unverified  - certainly many Israeli sources (including one of the ones presented above!) would describe people denying that as denialism, but that just shows why we can't rely solely on WP:BIASED sources for things of that nature and why it's important to wait to put claims of historical negationism in the article voice or title until the dust settles and we have actually high-quality sources capable of giving a sense of what the historical consensus actually is. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that it's undeniable that the October 7th attacks occurred and they are presented in Wikivoice everywhere on Enwiki, while the so-called "Gaza genocide" is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that is not presented in Wikivoice anywhere on Enwiki. JM (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh really? So it must have been a shock for you when the top UN court decided that that "fringe theory" is plausible. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  00:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To compare with another contentious subect: Clay Shaw was tried in a court of law assassinating Kennedy and the HSCA concluded that there were two shooters, but both of those theories are still WP:FRINGE. Also, the UN's bias against Israel is detailed in multiple sections of multiple Wikipedia articles: 1, 2, 3, 4. Now that that's out of the way, back to the actual nomination. JM (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You call a murder of 30,000 civilians in 100 days, "fringe"? Seriously? — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  21:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's refrain from populism. What is "fringe", that is to say, lacking widespread acceptance, is the assertion that this constitutes a genocide. In order for an action to be classified as genocide, a hundred casualties might suffice; the debate centers on the matter of intent. The October 7th attacks are, as JM stated, undeniable. The allegation of a Gaza genocide, at least according to mainstream sources, is what it is - an allegation, until proven otherwise. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Oct 7 attacks are undeniable, which is why denial of the Oct 7 attacks is not a thing. The mass killings of 30,000 Palestinians is equally undeniable.
 * The press, still stuck in the crossfire of mass propaganda efforts, is confusing denial-of-the-undeniable with denial (or more accurately, dispute) of unproven claims. We need to be very careful in this area, particularly when this type of information is still being used to justify terrible things.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Onceinawhile Which reliable sources "dispute" or claim as "unproven" Hamas' mass atrocities including widespread sexual violence? Drsmoo (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See the Jeremy Scahill article linked and quoted below. In its c.9,000 words it carried out a detailed assessment of the many debunked or unverifiable claims made by the Israeli government. Your comment below about Electronic Intifada is misleading, as the Scahill article does not rely on any blogs or similar for any of his main conclusions - only reliable sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s incorrect, he repeatedly sources alleged discrepancies to blogs, he also cites deprecated sources like Electronic Intifada. The Intercept’s non news articles require attribution due to their bias. In comparison, the NYTimes article he attacks was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. The shoddy and biased article does not negate in any way the well established facts. Nor does it give you leeway to falsely claim that the evidence of widespread rape and torture is fake. Drsmoo (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jeremy Scahill is a widely-respected award-winning journalist. His article is the most detailed I have seen on this topic, and it is thoroughly sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

]
 * Delete, or merge Though the only substantive mergeable content appears to be the very fringe belief that the event didn't occur or was a 'false flag'. This is a WP:POVFORK of the main article that relies on a comparative tiny handful of sources to perform WP:SYNTHESIS per Aquillion, and the article title and content appears designed to suggest that the facts as presented by Israel regarding October 7 are beyond dispute, per Onceinawhile. It's about something that cannot yet even be defined, let alone been analysed to any degree. Too many details are still unknown to tell what is 'denialism' and what proper scepticism.Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * really? I think no well informed man disputes a) most of the dead in the 7 October attack on Israel were civilians; 2) part of Hamas plan was attacking civilian communities in the kibbutzim - so murdering civilians was premeditated, not a colateral; 3) rape and gender based crimes were used as a weapon of war. Denying or dwarfing these known, well documented facts, is denialism. GidiD (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Confirming both (2) and (3) would rely on knowledge of the intentions of the Hamas leadership. Please point us to solid proof of this?
 * In the same way, many commentators have stated that Israel has intentionally killed 20,000 women and children as a weapon of war to create a deterrent. They base this on the genocidal statements made by senior members of the Israeli government cited by South Africa in the ICJ case. But I am sure you will agree in that situation that such circumstantial evidence is not the same as direct proof that the IDF were ordered to intentionally massacre innocents?
 * We must be consistent in the way we process information about both sides of this awful situation.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.thenation.com/article/world/feminists-hamas-rapes/ - "On October 7, Hamas fighters raped Israeli women and girls. Whatever may have been unknown in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the rapes are by now as substantiated as anything ever can be in an ongoing war. There is eyewitness testimony. There are reports from doctors and others who saw bodies of women who had been sexually abused. There are photographs. You have to be a conspiracist or rape denialist to dismiss all that as fabricated. And yet, social media is crammed with dismissals of the evidence as Israeli propaganda'''.
 * @Onceinawhile The fact that Hamas committed widespread rape is  not disputed by reliable sources. Yet, you've repeatedly claimed that these facts are uncertain, in the context of baseless WP:SOAPBOX proclamations of "propaganda".
 * For example:
 * "great to hear that you have been able to confirm these facts are 100% certain. Please could you provide the sources which:
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denial_of_the_7_October_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1203155183
 * "great to hear that you have been able to confirm these facts are 100% certain. Please could you provide the sources which:
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denial_of_the_7_October_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1203155183
 * confirms the minimum number of rapes that have been established, perhaps with the names of the victims where available
 * confirms that these rapes were ordered by the Hamas leadership as a pre-planned strategy of terror, ideally with the source explaining how they were able to ascertain this" - Onceinawhile
 * "the well-funded propaganda campaigns are still at their peak and we need to tread very carefully. In time we will know whether it is reasonable or not to "question" the events of October 7, but we are still some way away from that point." - Onceinawhile
 * "if you show me your count of citizens definitely "killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated", then I will answer your question. I bet you can’t get to even 5% of the total. Politicians and propagandist media encourage us to extrapolate." - Onceinawhile
 * Unless you are able to produce a reliable source that disputes Hamas' documented sexual atrocities, the "uncertainty" and false claims of "propaganda" need to end. Drsmoo (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See the Jeremy Scahill article below, published on 7 February: In light of Israel's well-documented campaign of lies and misinformation about other events on October 7, incendiary allegations, such as claims that Hamas engaged in a deliberate campaign of systematic rape, should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Longhornsg and Marokwitz. They have shown that there is extensive coverage of the denial, therefore it should have an article. JM (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What part of the extensive coverage merits a standalone article instead of a subsection of the 10/7 attacks page or the Misinformation during the Israel-Hamas war page? Jebiguess (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. May be notable based on other people, but at a quick glance, I don’t think that it is ready to have its own article. Also tagged for neutrality, so the article needs to be blown up.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 01:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we blew up every article and section that was ever tagged for neutrality we would have few if any articles in any CTOPs. JM (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to both people above. Conyo14 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify or Weak Keep I think the article is notable enough that it should get it's own page but right now it has some issues. Far too much of the article is about reactions and not enough about the denial phenomenon itself, if that makes sense. Swordman97  talk to me 04:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That being said I heavily oppose this article getting deleted. I don't see any POVFORK or SYNTH issues like the commenters above are saying. Swordman97  talk to me 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SYNTH and a POVFORK largely per Onceinawhile.  nableezy  - 20:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to the article about the October 7 attacks. The sourcing isn't sufficient for a stand-alone. Sources talking about somebody somewhere denying something about the attacks do not constitute sources about "Denial of the 7 October attacks." It's not like Holocaust denial or even Nakba denial. It's probably way too soon to be talking about "October 7 denial" -- it's not even been six months yet. I'm not sure about merging -- maybe a close examination of sources would find some content worth including in the main article about the attacks. But whether it's deleted or merged, it shouldn't be a stand alone, not until there's cause to split it out from the main article. (Which would require a lot of sources.) Levivich (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SYNTH and a POVFORKCrampcomes (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eladkarmel, plus there are anough sources attesting the subject is notable. The nature of such contemporary social phenomena is to be built in the research field for years, so the prominence of instances un the article is natural since 7 October occured 6 monthes ago and does not mean the subject isn't notable. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 23:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because sometime is to be built upon in the future does not mean it deserves an article at the moment. That's what this AfD is about; the majority of sources delineate Oct 7 denial as a rationale for an increase in Holocaust denial instead of it's own, standalone phenomenon. The primary denialist conspiracy, the false flag one, can easily be relegated to a section within the Oct 7 attacks page or the Misinfo during the Israel-Hamas war page. Also, MANY atrocities are denied online shortly after coming to light, like the Douma chemical attack, Mariupol theatre airstrike, and the denial of them is very widely sourced, although the denial is relegated to the article or larger misinformation articles themselves. I don't see how the October 7 is any different, especially considering how recent it is for a large number of sources about the denial to be available. Jebiguess (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SYNTH and a POVFORKCrampcomes (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eladkarmel, plus there are anough sources attesting the subject is notable. The nature of such contemporary social phenomena is to be built in the research field for years, so the prominence of instances un the article is natural since 7 October occured 6 monthes ago and does not mean the subject isn't notable. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 23:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because sometime is to be built upon in the future does not mean it deserves an article at the moment. That's what this AfD is about; the majority of sources delineate Oct 7 denial as a rationale for an increase in Holocaust denial instead of it's own, standalone phenomenon. The primary denialist conspiracy, the false flag one, can easily be relegated to a section within the Oct 7 attacks page or the Misinfo during the Israel-Hamas war page. Also, MANY atrocities are denied online shortly after coming to light, like the Douma chemical attack, Mariupol theatre airstrike, and the denial of them is very widely sourced, although the denial is relegated to the article or larger misinformation articles themselves. I don't see how the October 7 is any different, especially considering how recent it is for a large number of sources about the denial to be available. Jebiguess (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per Marokwitz, GidiB, Eladkarmel and others. Notable phenomenon, well sourced by diverse multiple reliable sources, describing/reporting it with or without relation to Holocaust Denialism. Noon (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SYNTH. -- M h hossein   talk 21:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Incidents of denial surrounding October 7th events (especially early on) are well covered by diverse RS. Equally so, there are a number of articles already written on October 7 denial specifically as a unique phenomena. The widespread early denial of incidents of violence (which were later confirmed by numerous independent observers), and the publicly covered consequences of said denial, is grounds enough for this article to exist.  Mistamystery (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you source any articles that talk about 10/7 denial as a unique phenomenon and the early denial? This AfD regards that most of those articles only briefly mentioned 10/7 denial as a phenomenon as a whole, and almost always as the rationale for Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: For starter, WP:SYNTHESIS issue is not a reason to delete an article. Instead, the article should be fixed through editing and discussion at the talk page. Most importantly, the article topic is notable and passes WP:GNG with the following sources talking specifically about denial: The Washington Post, Newsweek, Ynetnews, The Irish Times, Star Tribune, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Toronto Sun, and the Anti-Defamation League. Then, we also have news articles about Israel currently trying to criminalize the article subject: 1, 2.
 * Lastly, the general notability guideline does not actually require the RS to be unbiased in assessing the notability of any topic. EDIT at 9 February: more sources in Tagesspiegel, Il Foglio, Forward, Le Driot de Vivre, and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy --StellarHalo (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - more than half of the sources you raised specifically talking about denial are questionable for GNG. Newsweek, Toronto Sun are opinion articles. Ynetnews article is just a rewrite of WaPo's article, should not be counted as separate. ADL's is a blog post. Irish Times has zero discussion of denial in the article beyond the quotes of the Israeli ambassador.  starship .paint  (RUN) 13:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline does not actually say that opinion articles cannot be counted as RS for assessing a topic's notability. StellarHalo (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. You just said it: "RS". Opinion pieces aren't WP:RS, see WP:RSOPINION. Levivich (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh. No. The guideline does not actually say that. If what you said is actually the case, opinion pieces would not have been permitted for use at all. StellarHalo (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ??? ... Of course synthesis is a reason for a page not to exist - if the topic itself is the creation of original research. If the topic is not cohesively and substantively discussed in analytical, secondary sources then the topic can't be "fixed" because it doesn't exist on an encyclopedia-suitable level. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 source (the Intercept) that expressly mentions the denial comparisons leant on in this page as being propaganda strategy, so not just wayward of WP:NOTNEWS, but worse. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That article consistently cites non-reliable/deprecated sources like blogs and electronic intifada. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

- highlighting two independent issues. (1) a recent Arbitration motion regarding PIA Canvassing; (2) noticed that votes on this AfD by active Hebrew Wikipedia editors are currently 6-0 in favor of Keep (1 /  2 /   3 / 4 /    5 / 6), and if you add in sporadic he.wiki editors it is 8-1 in favour of Keep. (7 / 8 / 1 delete). May update numbers later on.  starship .paint  (RUN) 13:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand the comment. It makes sense that Hebrew speakers were more exposed to the phenomenon of the denial.Eladkarmel (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hebrew speakers denying stuff? Ah, that's why they need a law, right, got it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in taking part in a cynical conversation. Speak to me politely, and we will continue the conversation.Eladkarmel (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does it "make sense that Hebrew speakers were more exposed to the phenomenon of the denial"? Do you mean because of Israeli reporting like this? It is fascinating to see how matter-of-fact these mainstream Israeli journalists and politicians are when discussing the topic. As if the mainstream in Israel knows full well that their government propagated a large number of significant lies. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your comment is factually wrong and unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  23:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think this is an important point to denote, but only because these users seem to assert "there are RS mentioning Oct 7 denial, and October 7 happened, ergo a denialism article is necessary." These users also seldom provide sources for their claims. Jebiguess (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the people advocating for delete ought to vote to merge as an WP:ATD. Deletion should be a last resort and clearly there is notability about the topic. I still believe the content spread is weak, or the article could have a different title as others have pointed out. Conyo14 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The keepers could do that, too? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keeping is the first line of defense in an AfD. However, the ATD goes merge, redirect, or draftify. Therefore, if the keeps would rather have the article merge then it is up to them, but the deletes ought to reconsider, since none of that information would be retained. Conyo14 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per Aquillion, Jebiguess, etc. A lot of the linked sources by keep voters are about people "denying" whether certain events happened DURING the attacks. This is a completely different matter than the topic that the page title purports, and if the content belongs anywhere, it belongs on the Oct 7 article itself. A clear SYNTH problem. Also, if the closer is so inclined to care, you can count this as a !!!STRONG!!! delete, but I find using strong before keep and delete fairly gauche. Parabolist (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Important source published yesterday: This article from Jeremy Scahill should help clarify some of the questions discussed above. There is far too much reasonable doubt about the Israeli narrative for a one-sided "denial" article to be justified. Onceinawhile (talk)
 * That article repeatedly sources details of its skepticism to blogs and deprecated sources like Electronic Intifada. Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a single reference you alleged. Conversely, I could see a lot of references to reliable, mainstream sources, including Reuters, NPR, Haaretz, Times of Israel, AP News, France24, New York Times, etc. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. For his reference re "valid concern" he sources to a blog. Regarding criticism of the NY Times story, he links to another blog. There are two items sourced to Electronic Intifada. It's interesting that you bring up those reliable sources above, NONE of whom have propagated denial of the atrocities, and in most cases have explicitly confirmed that the atrocities occurred. Haaretz have written two articles about how bad actors have distorted their reporting to promote denialism. Drsmoo (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is Scahill stating that he considers the concerns documented on social media about Shari Mendes' reliability to be valid. Mendes was widely quoted stating that she personally saw a baby cut out of a pregnant woman and both the baby and mother were beheaded, yet it was later confirmed in the Israeli government data that no pregnant woman or unborn baby was killed on October 7. Scahill's judgement thus appears entirely reasonable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources you have linked to, above, Drsmoo, are largely opinion pieces! Pot, kettle, black? Can I also ask you to follow talkpage guidelines and not go back and edit prior comments out of chronological order, as your comment inserting all of those unreliable sources (along with a couple of more reliable ones) did? At best, it's disingenuous. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: The guideline in question is WP:Notability which requires the presence of extensive secondary, independent and reliable reporting on the topic. So far the only source which has dealt with the topic directly is the Washington Post article but that is far from extensive reporting. Plus, this is a desperate attempt to force making the attacks on 7 October 2023 to be named commonly as the "7 October attacks" in order to connect it to 9/11. If this isn't delete, it should be renamed or merged at the very least. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep sources in discussion above clearly show this meets GNG. The quantity and quality of the provided sources show this has enough IRS sources for a stand alone article and these sources show that denial and distortion is an ongoing issue, and it is very clear there will be even more sources in the future. I think the delete votes are WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * With all the keep votes with sources, those advocating for a delete need to show why not even two of these sources above and in the article are IRS. The deleters should do a source evaluation table (as is common practice at AfD) listing the sources above and in the article and explaining why they do not meet SIGCOV. All I see is WP:IDONTLIKEIT walls of text.  // Timothy :: talk  19:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * SYNTH and POVFORK does not mean there are no sources, it means that the sources dont treat this topic as a topic and that the presentation of this (as denialism) is a POVFORK from the articles that cover the issues and include all significant views on them. That may be all you see, but that is plainly not the basis of the delete votes. The Washington Post source, for example, merely says But Oct. 7 denial is spreading, but it doesnt really deal with the topic of denialism of the attacks beyond that. That source is cited 11 times for the record. This source, cited in the article, does not once mention denial or denialism. This source, again cited in the article, does not once mention denialism. The sources in the article do not in fact treat this topic as a topic, and several of them dont even mention the supposed topic at all, much less give it significant coverage.  nableezy  - 20:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge some of the content with 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Some of the content may be worth keeping, but in my view not enough to warrant its own article. I share concerns about the notability of the topic itself, as expressed by Nableezy. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.