Deletion of Knowledge in Islam (2nd nomination)

Comment: Draftification of a highly notable topic is not the wiki way, as we are supposed to work on topics in main space, where everyone can find them and contribute.  This is clear policy per  which states that{{quote|Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: Earwig finds https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Knowledge+in+Islam&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 extensive copyvio, including big blocks from a source that https://web.archive.org/web/20090307044803/https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l302-Sources-of-Islamic-Law.html predates the article's creation by over a decade, so it's clearly not reverse copyvio. The text overall is deeply and inextricably POV. It also seems to be |synthesizing topics from theology to medieval history to modern higher education, as though every subject in any book that has both "Islam" and "Knowledge" in the title is fair game. The sources are a grab-bag of the tangential and the unreliable, from an online dictionary entry for the word "science" to a book self-published on Lulu.com. We already have the articles Education in Islam, Islamic philosophy, and many more. This is not even a good starting point for another
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: between the long history of copyvio, the inherently  nature of the content, and the article's |owner being willing to neither accept the result of the last AfD nor improve the article such that the last AfD becomes moot--- it's quite clear that this is a hopeless case. If it is draftified it would also need to be |greenlocked to stop the owner from sneaking back in three months to move it again
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OWN||WP:GREENLOCK)