Deletion of Muhammad (no images)

Comment: actual thoughts censored in light of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: Wikipedia is not censored, POV forks are a very, very bad idea, and this sets a very undesirable precedent with other articles containing potentially offensive images or content. This should be deleted per  as waiting the full five days is really not necessary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: and close AfD as . Violates many core policies, all listed above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: this article violates an a huge way 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: Violates . This was done in good faith, but would set a terrible precedent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: per  and |Wikipedia is not censored
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:CENSORED)

Comment: As per all above.  Even the creator has admitted he was only trying to be bold.  Let's put this experiment in POV-forking to |sleep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: Oh crap. I think there is a valid reason for this in that everyone in the world comes to Wikipedia to look up their favourite subjects; Muhammad will be an article of interest to Muslims; this site will give everyone on the globe the best NPOV overview of that person's life; and the only hangup is the issue of "depictions of the prophet" which is not an issue because it may offend people, it is an issue because it may ''keep people from reading the article at all''. People may not read this because of the very fact that it contains those offending images. It doesn't seem too tough to cut them out in a ''linked'' and identical article that makes it pretty easy to answer concerns with "click this link". I don't really see this as a big slippery slope, I think it's singular, a one-off, based on respect. Nothing is being lost here.  --  That said, I specifically noted I was being |bold, whosever god you pray to, lets pray this doesn't explode. I thought it was a good shot but I'll vote whichever way is quietest:) Take it as my honest attempt at compromise and be nice to each other
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)