Deletion of Religious violence

Comment: Certainly fails |original research, possibly other areas too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The above discussions have not refuted the |original research and |synthesis criticisms.  As such, I think any admin or editor who closes the discussion should disregard those opinions advocating keeping the article.  The problem (which no one has yet refuted) is that the article conflates all kinds of unrelated activities: terrorism, ritual mutilation, human and animal sacrifice, and sectarian violence.  There is no support whatsoever for this synthesis having been done by anyone other than the editors.  I don't believe this grouping of diverse types of acts, treated together, could be found in reliable unbiased sources.  They might be treated separately, all of which separate treatement use the phrase "religious violence", but they are not treated together in a notable way.  The idea was conceived and cobbled together by the editors and no one else.  Without a showing that this conflation of all these diverse types of phenomenon are treated together in a notable way by secondary sources, this article plainly fails based on |original research and |synthesis not withstanding any number of "votes" to keep it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: Although  addresses only living persons, I believe that articles primarily presenting criticism of others' institutions, beliefs, practices, etc. generally should have heightened reliability and sourcing standards, particularly on controversial matters, to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. #CENSORED, but #SOAP either. I am particularly concerned, for example, that the article's only statement specifically mentioning Islam is from a science fiction novel. We cannot afford to be this careless. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Religious violence is clearly a notable topic, so widely covered that this article could be copiously referenced. Parts of the article seem to reflect POV or even to be incorrect, but they can be rephrased or, if necessary, removed. "If a page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (See ). Moreover, "If there's anything useful towards a good article, the article should be improved, not deleted" (See 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DP||WP:NOEFFORT)

Comment: per nom. No sources are cited and the style (written like an essay) gives clear indications of it being |original research and |synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: until there has been a chance to explore the topic further.  This is clearly a notable term and a notable topic both in mass culture and in academia.  Presently the entry is unreferenced and possibly bordering on  ''because of'' the lack of references.  I might agree with the idea of deleting the content and making a stub entry, but I don't think this nomination was the right course of action given that no other course of action was taken first.  For instance, the tags about original research and the lack of references only went up after the AfD nomination--see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_violence&diff=165379466&oldid=165091624 here.  I've added several books to the further reading section written on various aspects of this topic by prominent academics.  I hope that helps someone get started on improving it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)