Deletion of Persecution of Muslims in Sri Lanka

Comment: WP:SYNTH of several not very connected incidents widely separated in time.  Also, the title is an  violation with connotations of systematic and organized persecution, possibly government backed, which is not borne out either by the article or the sources.  The article seems unable to distinguish between persecution and discrimination and I agree that the halal boycott is actually neither of those things.  I don't want to eat ceremoniously killed animals either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: The sources do not show any persecution. The halal meat boycott is being used as an example of "persecution" by Buddhist group Bodu Bola Sena, but when you look at what actually happened, the Buddhists just objected to having the government pay Muslim religious authorities to certify meat at public expense, and to being forced to buy food with Muslim religious symbols on the packages.  Nobody's businesses are going to be effected, they're just going to stop putting the labels on the food. Sure, there are groups screaming that this is "anti-Muslim", but I don't think you will find any  reliable sources that say this.Special:Contributions/115.67.39.165|115.67.39.165
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I don't see why there needs to be an explicit 'admission' anywhere that Muslims are (or aren't) persecuted in Sri Lanka. The content of the article just needs to conform to the subject of the article as defined in the title and be backed up by |sources - and I can see this being the case here. The article strings together several notable events where Muslims have been discriminated, specifically targeted or 'singled out' as the phrase goes. We do have many religious/ethnic persecution articles on Wikipedia and this is one of those. The article subject is notable and encyclopedic enough, IMHO, to have an article. The issues pointed out in the nom. are things that could be done by working on the article, really. I don't see how deletion is a solution here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Seems to be |original research --w
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)