Deletion of Islam and censorship

Comment: Attempt to synthesize various incidents (most of which aren't actually censorship) to make original arguments about how awful Muslims are. , , etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: and better work on Human rights in contemporary Islamic societies (|note the lack of any section there on limits on freedom of expression). That is the topic that this article is |creeping towards anyway. Someone being killed after saying something is not how censorship is normally defined. There's also a long list of incidents in Freedom of speech versus blasphemy#Islam (which also covers events outside Islamic societies proper), so there isn't much that's |missing from Wikipedia. And look how pretty censorship by country is too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:COATRACK||WP:CFORK)

Comment: Recent edit-warring by keep voters to put into the article non-censorship and non-Islamic censorship - in short, to create as long a list of incidents unfavorable to Muslims as possible, regardless of sources or policy - continues to demonstrate that  is the best possible option even for users who believe that the sources will support an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The article is currently not very good but that seems to be because of there being too many cooks and lots of edit warring.  Our |editing policy is to persevere and improve the content.  Better sources exist such as ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TvgnAAAAYAAJ Censorship in Islamic societies'' - a reasonably respectable book-length treatment of the topic.  Finding and working from such sources is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.  Note also that I'm here because the matter was raised at ANI
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: There is no way this article will ever be made to hew to .  It is a  for every Islamophobic right-wing sentiment out there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This issue has become far too controversial in the last couple of days. I'll let the community decide on the outcome. I'm happy to do that. It looks like I missed lots of information in the last couple of days to become too involved in it again. My primary concerns were the small incidences of extreme behavior that were in the article and the massive amounts of irrelevant and unsourced information, that should not be in a wiki article since it blatantly violates . As far as I see it you can only talk about one thing and that's depictions of Muhammad. Honestly that's about as far as I can see it's gonna get. Someone needs to work on work consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: MVBW - the article again fails to demonstrate how ISLAM (ie the religion) censorship's anything. Blasphemy and heresy are not forms of censorship. Governments can censor things but not religions - even Fatwa's which are religious rulings can't even said to be censorship since they are not law. You've simply added the same nonsense as before more or less. It's clearly violating . A better idea is to rename the article to '''"Islamic societies and Censorship"''' since things can be added to it for individual countries
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Easily passes .  Perhaps name it Censorship by law, violence, or harassment, in the name of Islam or something more fitting.  The article shouldn't have been renamed to include in "societies" since the censorship affects things worldwide.  Something is done that offends them in America, their leaders can rile them up, and they go insane and start committing violence against people not even remotely connected to the event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)