Deletion of Praise and veneration of Muhammad

Comment: Per Shawn in Montreal. It is nothing but violation of  and the great amount of quote farming makes it very hard to understand that what is the actual purpose of the article. Also agree that Muhammad in Islam is accurately enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The article as written has a rather staggering number of issues. Much, maybe even most, of the article seems to be written as if it were a persuasive essay, offering primary source citations as proof for the given analysis in a manner that clearly violates both  and . What analysis that is left to secondary sources is dominated by one rather outdated source to which the vast bulk of citations link. The 1985 book by Annemarie Schimmel is cited 40 times, 1/3rd of all the citations in the article. Most of the non-superfluous information is redundant as it it covered in depth elsewhere in several articles, and the sheer volume of long quotations is overwhelming and unwieldy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The more I study the article the more it occurs to me that it is a |synthesised "''list of praises''" and "''list of people who praise Muhammad''". On top of that, it is a huge  of sayings and poetry. The only section that looks encyclopedic is the introduction. I would've imagined that an article about the Veneration of Muhammad describes how people venerate Muhammad, such as in http://books.google.com/books?id=kFJNBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA120 this book, rather than quoting each and every example of praise (which is equal to using  sources). Besides, if people want an article about positive views, there's Muhammad in Islam, to which Veneration of Muhammad currently redirects
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:QUOTEFARM||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: A lot of effort went both into this article and into creating a lot of sockpuppets so the article's creator could argue their case on this AfD, but despite the hard work that went into it, the article is still a quotefarm produced via . The topic in and of itself doesn't seem supported, and the article's creator simply decided that they wanted to write an essay and gather various sources for it. A lot of these sources and excessive quotes could simply be added to the Muhammad article (though a lot of them are already there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I agree that this article has plenty of issues (, , ), but it also has encyclopedic content and meets notability requirements. It should be improved rather than deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:PRIMARY||WP:QUOTE)

Comment: If someone nominated the article: criticism of Muhammad for deletion, I am pretty sure that all genuine Muslims would vote for deleting it. On the other hand, if someone nominated the article: Praise and veneration of Muhammad for deletion, I am pretty sure that all genuine non-Muslims would vote for deleting it. This is exactly what we have here! A non-Muslim (apparently with anti-Islam agenda) wants the article Praise and veneration of Muhammad to get deleted because he doesn't like it. This appears to be a typical . The topic of the article is very encyclopedic and very popular. There are more than 2 billion spirits from all over the world who define themselves as Muslims and who consider the Prophet Muhammad to be the most praised man ever walked the Earth
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)