The result was delete. This has been an extended discussion, featuring a lot of good-faithed contributions from editors with a wide range of viewpoints, and I thank everyone for their collegial participation below in what is obviously a very sensitive topic.
There have been a number of arguments advanced on all sides, but the primary focus as this debate has developed has been around (for those advocating 'keep') that the general notability guideline has been met and that coverage exists in multiple reliable sources, contrasted with a belief (for those advocating 'delete') that an insufficient number of the sources cover the concept of denial of atrocities, and therefore this is a synthesis and constitutes 'original research' as defined by Wikipedia's policies. These two arguments were explored signficantly more than any alternate rationales to keep or delete, and on that basis I have focused my assessment of consensus on these two basis primarily.
Reviewing the discussion, it is clear that the two arguments were both made in good faith and enjoyed some level of support. Critically, neither was disproven by their opponents to the point that they should be disregarded by me as the closer. My assessment of the relative strength of the arguments is that those advocating 'delete' did a better job of refuting the core argument to 'keep', than vice-versa. However, it definitely wasn't completely refuted or disproven, and so I considered it at the next stage of the consensus-reviewing exercise.
Having established that both key arguments to delete or keep are valid in terms of our policies & guidelines and neither was sufficiently refuted to be discarded entirely, I then have to assess the relative support each position has. Ultimately the discussion was deadlocked in the sense that there were competing views, and neither 'side' was willing to budge on their interpretion of P&Gs as they relate to this article. In this situation, the next step is to assess which argument had more support.
On this marker of consensus-finding, I find that the 'delete' rationale had more support from those who explored the subject adequately. To be clear, this is not a head-counting exercise at this point in assessing consensus, and I did indeed apply lower weight to a significant number of comments which did not advance this or any other argument that was relevant. I discounted (note: not "disregarded", but "discounted" - ie. applied reduced weight to) a larger number of 'keep' contributions than I did 'delete' or 'merge' at this stage, as they did not offer an especially compelling rationale for keeping or deleting per our P&Gs. The margin was not as clear as many 'delete' closes we see at AfD, but I found it to be sufficient to allow consensus to be established.
In summary:
On these basis, I find a consensus exists to delete and have subsequently closed the debate as such. Daniel (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)