Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nakba denial

Caveat
Could you please elaborate on what you mean with the caveat? Notability guidelines are the guidelines which determine if a topic deserves a standalone topic or not, and this has been demonstrated by the editors participating in the discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Presumed
 * Significant coverage
 * Reliable
 * Secondary sources
 * Independent of the subject


 * I see the point of the caveat but this is usually the sort of thing you would see in the close of an RFC rather than a deletion discussion. A good chance that this caveat will now result in such an RFC when editors might have been left to decide that for themselves.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good morning @Makeandtoss& @Selfstudier. While I don't disagree with you re what determines a standalone, we also have WP:NOPAGE to consider. The reason for the caveat is to avoid folks arguing in a potential merger discussion that "it closed as keep, therefore keep" which isn't necessarily true here or in general. I don't see this necessitating an RFC at all, just that there is potential for further discussion. The material is worth including, 100% but where isn't necessarily clear. We didn't need another week at AfD for that and consensus may end up that it doesn't need a merger, but my reading is the latter wasn't clear. Does that help? Happy to continue discussing. Star   Mississippi  12:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was open to editors to opt for merge as an alternative to deletion, they didn't though. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (Courtesy pings as I'm quoting and citing them)
 * explicitly with !votes, no, but we have urged at NPOVN that this content be merged into Nakba (@Chris troutman), keep without prejudice to later merger (@Alalch E.) and further comments from @Sirfurboy, @DIYeditor, @Barnards.tar.gz (although the latter was a redirect) et al which is what lead me to read the consensus as retain but not explicitly where. This was an AfD where the words that followed the !votes was as if not more helpful. As a closer in a difficult area, I appreciate the longer form commentary. Star   Mississippi  13:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, and for the timely close. I am continuing to think about this, and I am open to the idea of some form of overarching reorganization under which Nakba denial would not be treated in a separate article, but I don't have any specifics in mind. —Alalch E. 13:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Star Mississippi Endorse close. While I was on the other side of this discussion, I think this is a pretty solid reading of where the community is at the moment. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)