Deletion of People reported to be born in the Kaaba (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . This seems like another part of the veritable fiefdom of original research pieces created by a certain user in the mid-2000s. To be fair, that user was an incredibly helpful editor based on their edit history, and created many high-importance articles on religion, but there was also a strong tendency to publish is own research as Wikipedia articles. This is a prime example of that: a series of primary sources used to support an original point which the original author (pre-move) was trying to make
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: What a disaster of an article. As if someone is saying "look, here is what we think, this is what they think and here is a flood of evidence proving we are right and they are wrong." That is not neutral, simple as that. The state of sourcing is awful and, even worse, it looks like , as none present these births together. The other article is hardly any better, except maybe for its language; if the other one gets afd'ed, I'd probably vote delete too (or perhaps redirect due to the somewhat plausible title
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: per , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:BOLLOCKS||WP:NOT)