Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad (2nd nomination)

You invited people to put their views on whether or not the page in question should be deleted. I do not write as an expert - I only know enough to know that Muhammad did indeed have people killed.

I am glad to see that you are giving opportunity for people to comment, and not deleting out of hand because of a couple of requests to do so. I hope that people who can comment in a scholarly manner, corroborating or correcting content and source, will find their way to this page and do so. To that end, I will make it known as best I can.

If this list is correct - and I have no reason to suppose it is not - I know it would offend people of the Islamic faith who did not know this of their prophet, and it would also offend those who did know and would prefer it not widely known; but if it is the truth, it deserves and demands to be widely known. I hope you give every opportunity for its veracity or otherwise to be discovered before taking such an action as deleting.

Sincerely,

MarleneWilkinson (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would people be offended to know that a military leader carried out his duties ?! Unflavoured (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My final comment
I'm adding this comment because it was said the delete arguments were weak. The couple of examples I gave in the discussion, and which nobody refuted, were enough to convince me that this "list" was not merely a navigational aid, but a tract that advanced a cetain viewpoint, mainly constructed by discarding any doubt about some events, even though doubt exists in equally reliable sources that were not used in this page, but easily found in the articles that were linked from it, and by representing Mohammad's victims as helpless and powerless as possible; e.g. a chieftain of tribe was presented as a mere poet here, although he apparently wrote poetry as well. If I'm allowed a bit of hyperbole, the list was presenting a huge massacre of the lambs. Whether this was consciously the intent of the writer or not is rather immaterial—and it's difficult to assume total serendipity given his other edits highlighted in the discussion—, but the effect on the contents of the table was clear. It's also telling that when another supporter of this tract was shown that one of the 19th century sources used here was written with clear Christian missionary intent, he accused a modern historian of being ultra-biased just because she pointed out the clearly stated views and intents of this older scholar (Muir), which had even caused controversy among his 19th century contemporaries. The theory that this page was merely an uncontroversial navigational list thus had to be rejected, and sources that support the presentation of the material in this format were demanded. Unfortunately, no such sources have been provided, which led me to concluded that this table was contravening WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTH. I generally don't like removing material from Wikipedia, but most significant events that were badly summarized in this table have their own articles, so nothing of real scholarly value was lost by deleting this page. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so much that the delete votes were "weak" as such, but many didn't address the main point, which was POV forking. Whilst a discussion of the strength of the sources is fine, that wasn't the reason why the article should be kept or deleted. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)