'British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the [Gaza genocide] article’s inclusion. “Based on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is.”'

From this, maybe it is clearer (but not shorter) to say: ‘It’s not close’ - The inclusion of "Gaza genocide" to Wikipedia's "List of genocides" ends editorial debate

Alt phrasing: Wikipedia's editorial debate ends with the inclusion of "Gaza genocide" to "List of genocides" page

(I'm trying to not repeat "Wikipedia" several times.)

Somewhat related Wikipedia article regarding parsing sentences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence

"Israel committing genocide" concludes Wikipedia, ending debate

Wikipedians were weighing the evidence on whether to call the Gaza thing a genocide or not. They decided to call it a genocide, as the academic evidence/consensus was so far in favor of that, that it wasn't even close.

Two sentences.

It's not close. Israel is committing genocide concludes Wikipedia, ending debate.

First subject 'it' being the debate on genocide or not, second subject Israel.

It could have been written more clearly. Also the word genocide seems to suffering a bit from atrocity inflation a bit like grade inflation where everyone gets As. It used to be for wiping out an ethnic group, it now seems to apply to fighting terrorists with heavy civillian casualties.