Deletion of List of killings of Muhammad

Comment: OR '''Merge with main article'''. Not  or  because it's a list (see Amatulić vote) . Not  Concentration of facts does not imply an agenda if sources view and discuss it in such a fashion (see also non-article sources ITT), lists by their nature concentrate facts and higher test standards must be applied. Both arguments against the sources do not hold water ("primary religious texts and other outdated scholarship" is factually untrue and would be irrelevant if it was, the events took place 1500 years ago; "wouldn't pass muster even if all the sources were excellent and recent" implies what it argues against.) Not  because there are no alternate opinions if the list answers the criterion by which it is arranged. Lack of WP precedent is factually untrue, see for example List of postal killings or List of killings and massacres in the British Mandate for Palestine to which same argument can be applied. However recommend to improve by specification (e.g. "List of notable killings authorized by Muhammad" etc) and attentive verification of sources. Unfortunately a case of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR||WP:SOAPBOX||WP:UNDUE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: A case of an editor using  hidden beneath weak, faulty logic. Religious books are used as sources in plenty of articles, and for this particular one there are other reputable sources. Censorship has no place on Wikipedia. Just because the topic makes some people uncomfortable, is no reason to acquiesce and hide factual information. Trying to influence admins by smearing editors who vote to *keep* as 'single purpose accounts' and possible stooges of an anti-Muslim website is a well known tactic advocated by those with little ammo to debate with. I resent the implication. Keep it. Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: OR '''Purge killings not actually performed by Muhammad.''' per  / 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: inherently violates  because of  weight. It flies in the face of |assuming good faith, especially in the context of the principal author's lack of contributions elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_Against_Fascism&action=historysubmit&diff=348962270&oldid=348852790#cite_note-photo1-0 These http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=326251920&oldid=326250533 two (attempted) edits showing that they verge on a |single purpose account who sees Wikipedia as a . If the author reads this, I hope he takes it as a warning from the community to edit the encyclopedia in a neutral manner and not with some sort of political axe to grind
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:AGF||WP:SPA||WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: This list |does not promote a particular point of view, is not given |undue weight, is not |violating good faith, or any of the other presumptions asserted by those who are voting for deletion. This is not a controversial topic and is very straight-forward to gather the facts about it. Special:Contributions/71.207.217.11|71.207.217.11
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:AGF)