Deletion of Militant Islam

Comment: per TwoHorned ''et al.''  or  are not justifications for retaining an unsourced POV fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: As the contributor is a Muslim herself, both the article AND AFD nominator may be treading on , , and/or #SOAP. Both have pointed out valid reasons, and seems to present it in a professional manner. Thus, as of now, i will just comment and be neutral
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:POINT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Got |attributable sources? {{User:Netscott/s1.js
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: or '''Stub''' it. During the article's 4 year life it has not been sourced, at all. It totally fails . I'm sure some of it can be sourced, but I'd really recommend stubbing this such that the revision history is kept. Or someone copy it to your userpage. Right now it is 90-99%  and there is no reason or excuse for it. Western media is full of books and news article using the term and about the issue itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:OR)

Comment: Unsourced apparent original research. The argument "well just find sources" doesn't stack up. If people can't provide sources ''at the time of writing'' it means it is original research that breaks one of wikipedia's foundations. if sourcing is not possible at the time, how on earth can it be done retrospectively? I can't understand how the pincipal of  and  can even be up for discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:ATT)