Deletion of Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms

Comment: per  and . #DICT does not apply here. Glossaries are a part of wikipedia.  ''See Portal:Contents/List of glossaries''  --Special:Contributions/Enhanceddownloadbird|'''EnhancedDownloadBird
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:POV||WP:NOT)

Comment: The ''Possible neutral term'' column is a |POV assertion that will probably satisfy no one but its author, even if properly sourced. And it will be so just by being different than any of the three "non-neutral" views. As for all other columns, they are all properly exposed already in articles relating to each individual religion and/or articles relating to the terms themselves. --Blanchardb
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: Per  & 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:NOR)

Comment: review again in a couple of months.  The article is only 3 days old.  It has clear potential for improvement.  It could be, at least potentially, a very encyclopedic and useful overview for comparing/contrasting key usages and acting as a portal to more detailed presentations on specific words.  #DICT does not apply here -- this is not a dictionary.  The editors should be given a chance to remedy  and  concerns by more comprehensive citation to s.  The "Neutral" column, in particular, is not sustainable without detailed references.  But I see no reason why the other columns should not be sourceable.   AFDs are supposed to consider the potential of articles for improvement.  This article has potential
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOR||WP:POV||WP:RS)

Comment: Unsubtle use of a "glossary" (which we don't need in any case) to further a |biased agenda. Sweeping generalisations,  etc etc. Not salvageable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)