Deletion of Religious conversion and terrorism

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:NOR)

Comment: per . If I could come up with a list 12 people who engaged in X and subsequently engaged in terrorism, would Wikipedia accept an article called X and terrorism that darkly hints the two are linked? How about Premarital sex and terrorism? Illegal immigration and terrorism? or maybe Driving while black and terrorism? You get the idea. Anybody can come up with a dozen people who did almost anything someone wants to discredit and then subsequently engaged in terrorism or similar. I frankly don't see what makes this article any different from the (deliberately silly) ones I named
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: primarily due to  concerns, lacking any reliable secondary sources, all the references are to examples of "terrorists" who were religious converts and none about the topic of "Religious conversion and terrorism".  Furthermore this could be viewed as a narrowly disguised attack page on Islam, and certainly has POV issues with the fact that while the title seems to suggest it is religion-neutral, the discussion is about Islamic converts exclusively
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: POV is not grounds for deletion.  A perceived POV should trigger attempts at a rewrite, or trigger discussion on the talk page.  Talk of an article's topic being "hopelessly POV" disturbs me.  It particularly disturbs me when those voicing the concern haven't made any effort to follow the guidelines in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: Per nom, , etc. Wrong on so many levels
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)