Deletion of List of killings of Muhammad (2nd nomination)

Comment: per  and lack of reliable sources that discuss the topic (as opposed to mentioning individual instances). Also compare List of killings of Richard Nixon, List of killings of Ghengis Khan, List of killings of Napoleon, List of killings of William the Conquerer, List of killings of Lucretia Borgia, List of killings of Jesus of Nazareth, List of killings of Urban II
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: feels like a   attack on a religion.  No reliable source that discusses the issue in any kind of detail has been provided.  I feel pages like this _can_ exist (it's not inherently POV), the sourcing standards I'd want go up however.  Find a mainstream academic publication that largely covers the topic (killing Muhammad is responsible for) and I'd likely change to neutral.  Find two, and I might change to keep. As it is it feels very patched together (OR) and seems to me to have the purpose of attacking the religion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: A perfect implementation of a  fork as defined under our neutrality policy: "''A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts''". Inherently violates  because an article about this topic is inherently  weight. Created by a single purpose account who sees Wikipedia as a  for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=prev&oldid=326250533 anti-Islamic propaganda. Our policy on eutral point of view implores us to delete articles that are formulated in a way that can never be neutral. See the essay e neutral in form and the policy ttack page. There's no coincidence that the first list of this kind isn't about the killings of a modern gangster, a four star general, or even a Hitler|Fascist dictator. The first list of this kind targets a religious figure revered by a billion people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Irvinga04 These contributions are not good faith contributions to neutral encyclopedic knowledge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:SOAPBOX||WP:N||WP:B||WP:A)

Comment: Poor criteria for inclusion, which result in grouping together assassinations and other types of killings, and the fact that the article is framed as a list forces it into a format which isn't suited to historical contextualisation, but sets it up to be a |SOAPbox
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: per  or '''Purge''' killings not actually performed by Muhammad per  /  or as a last resort '''Rename''' to List of killings ordered by Muhammad
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK||WP:SYNTH||WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: A list of cherrypicked incidents from biographies |synthesized together into a |soapbox aimed at proving that Muslims are really bloodthirsty. Reliable sources don't discuss this topic. If reliable sources don't discuss a topic, we do not create an article on it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:SOAP)

Comment: A |soapbox article with an inherently |non-neutral ''title'' and consisting of |original synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX||WP:NPOV||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per . It's not exactly standard Wikipedia practice to have a "List of killings by" page for other historical religious, military, or political figures, so the fact that Muhammad is singled out for a page like this seems like pretty clear POV axe-grinding. There are a ton of historical figures who have killed lots of people, but there's no List of Killings of Augustus Caesar, or Belisarius, or whoever. Notable, sourced mentions of deaths caused or ordered by historical figures certainly have a place in their associated articles, but just dumping a big list like this as its own page is pretty inappropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Let’s sum up the main arguments of those in favor of censorship. The primary argument used to kill this article is: “Why are you doing this list if not to stir up trouble ? It’s an attack and POV  from biased racists or writers I don’t like. Even if we admit that the list is 100% factual, notable, reliable and verifiable, its existence threatens the way that Mohamed is perceived  by readers of Wikipedia. This article will be misused to enflame islamophobia, and is against my agenda and political philosophy. It’s better to let sleeping dogs lie
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:ATTACK)

Comment: perhaps renamed to include "ordered by".  This is an unsavoury aspect of his career, which certain Muslims would no doubt like to bury, but the WP  principle measn that it should be kept.  The article is well-sourced, and I presume the chroniclers cited are virtually the only sources available.  It is not mere anti-islamic propaganda, since it has plenty of |reliable sources, or at least as reliable as are available from a remote period.  Of course there is no list of "killings by Jesus Christ" or "killings by Buddha", because there were none.  Jesus reversed three natural deaths, as well as his own
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS)