| "Keep" | "Delete" | "Merge" | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of supporters | 8 | 8 | Counting only non-struck !votes following SP investigation | |
| Arguments from policy | 1. Deletion is not improvement (paraphrased) - Arashitan 2. Topic is notable/encyclopedic - Sheriff, m.sharaf, IP, Eperoton, unsigned, FreeAtLastChitChat,Human3015 |
1. Article is overly positive, fails WP:NOTADVOCATE (paraphrased) - nominator 2. Article fails WP:SYNTH, WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:NOR - HyperGaruda, Unequivocal, Alsee,MezzoMezzo 3. Is a personal essay - Rsrikanth05 |
||
| Counter to arguments from policy | 1. No direct counter-argument 2. As written, is not encyclopedic - Alsee, HyperGaruda, Shawn in Montreal |
1. No direct counter-argument 2. No direct counter-argument. 3. No direct counter-argument |
||
| Policy argument outcome | Topic is encyclopedic in principle | Article as currently written fails WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:SYNTH, WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:NOR | ||
| Arguments from precedent | 1. "Criticism of Muhammad" exists - Sheriff, Human3015, IP editor | |||
| Counter to arguments from precedent | 1. "Criticism" article is encyclopedic as written | |||
| Precedent argument outcome | No weight given to existence of "Criticism" article | |||
| Novel reasoning | 1. Article entitled "praise and veneration..." should not be expected to contain negative/balancing content - FreeatlastChitChat 2. Religious bias is behind the deletion nomination. |
|||
| Counter to novel reasoning | No direct counter-arguments | |||
| Novel reasoning outcome | Neither argument carries weight. | |||
| Analysis | The topic is significant enough, and no-doubt well-sourced enough, to make it notable. However, this nomination is not on notability grounds. | The article as written fails a number of important editorial policies. |
The result of the discussion was delete. Although the number of !voters on each "side" was similar, the weight of policy-based argument was almost entirely on the side of the "delete" !voters. It was persuasively argued by supporters of the article that in principle this is a notable (or encyclopedic) topic. However, notability was not the reason for the nomination, and a large number of other serious policy concerns were raised about the article as it currently exists. Delete !voters cited WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:QUOTEFARM among others, and these serious policy issues were not countered during this discussion.