Deletion of Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan

Comment: WP:POVPUSH says that characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It does not say to never do it, and the fact that three (so far) editors have invoked it here suggests that this may ''be'' the extraordinary circumstance where it was be warranted to highlight extreme editorial concerns. The POVPUSH page also says that calling another ''editor'' a "POV-pusher" is pejorative, but no one here has done that or addressed any individual editor's contributions, they've only used the term to refer to the ''article''. Here is the place to discuss those concerns, where the perceived POV issues permate the article as a whole (see my above response on this, where I go into '''far''' greater detail).If you are taking commentary regarding POV issues in the article as if it is directed toward you personally, I might recommend you read  and reflect on the fact that, as no editor 'owns' an article, no editor should feel personal offense toward how other editors discuss an article or its content, particularly when those discussing are not raising (or even aware of) the identity of individual contributing editors
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWNERSHIP)

Comment: there are 1.8 billion muslims in the world. As a percentage 1000 is 0.0000555555555556%. This article appears to be a damaging  push, and perhaps 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:OR)

Comment: per . I hate the blatant canvassing. I have to admit that IDONTLIKEIT. It needs work to fix the weasel words. It is something of a fork of Religious discrimination in Pakistan, but that article is already far too long. I like Pakistanis, have had colleagues from Pakistan, and saved Nursing in Pakistan (among others). But I have to agree with {{U|Geo_Swan}}. It passes on the basis of significant coverage. And IMHO, Al Jazeera is more reputable than some media from the United States
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: I agree with {{U|Buidhe}} that the delete opinions look alarmingly like IDONTLIKEIT. hat_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored|Wikipedia is not censored.  Those who want to suppress this article, on grounds of inaccuracy, claim the references don't support that forced conversions are a phenomenon, in Pakistan.  I am afraid their claims really look like the most embarrassing kind of wishful thinking.  When I read their claims that the RS did not substantiate forced conversions, a few hours ago, I acknowledged to myself I was looking at the headlines.  So, I looked at some of the references in detail.  Sure enough, the bodies of those articles concurred with the headlines.  The authors of those RS really were asserting that forced conversions were a phenomenon, in Pakistan.  If you personally don't believe that forced conversions are a phenomenon, in Pakistan remember, erify says we aim for ''"veritability not truth"''.  I'm sorry, your personal opinion that forced conversions aren't a phenomenon, in Pakistan, is irrelevant, if the RS state otherwise.  If there are reliable sources that debunk the RS that describe force conversions as a real phenomenon, that would not be an argument to suppress this article.  It would be a reason for the RS that stated the opposite side to ALSO be neutrally summarized here, bearing UNDUE in mind.  If we are going to strictly comply with the wikipedia's policies we have just two choices when the RS say something we don't personally believe '''(1)''' do our best to neutrally summarize what the RS say, even though we don't personally believe them; '''(2)''' walk away from that article, and let other contributors do all the work on it.  In the over fifteen years I have contributed to the wikipedia I have done my best to neutrally summarize thousands of references I disagreed with.  So, suck it up buttercup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:V)