The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whilst there is a general consensus to delete, with around 2/3 of the votes going that way, there are further factors in play. First of all, a number of votes are weak. Merely pointing out that "the article has lots of sources" isn't a good argument in this particular discussion, and of the course votes along the lines of "it's notable" , or "deleting would be censorship" are of course given less weight. That's not to say there are not weak Delete votes as well - there are; there appears to be little evidence that this article is synthesis or original research, and NPOV is usually grounds for fixing, not deleting. However, the argument that was pivotal here was the one first pointed out by Dzlife and expanded on later; "A perfect implementation of a WP:POV fork as defined under our neutrality policy: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". This is clearly what is happening here, and the argument was not refuted by any Keep voters. Whilst NPOV is not a reason to delete, content forking certainly is. Given both that this was the strongest argument, along with the general consensus to delete, the outcome is clear. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of killings of Muhammad[edit]

List of killings of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 20. If you have time, please read my closing comments as well as the previous AfD and DRV discussions to get an idea of the issues involved. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.

• Delete per WP:ATTACK or Purge killings not actually performed by Muhammad per WP:SYNTH / WP:SOAPBOX or as a last resort Rename to List of killings ordered by Muhammad. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The article is not encyclopaedic, it is biased, and the criteria for adding people is flawed. Unflavoured (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. A list of cherrypicked incidents from biographies synthesized together into a soapbox aimed at proving that Muslims are really bloodthirsty. Reliable sources don't discuss this topic. If reliable sources don't discuss a topic, we do not create an article on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't you mean a list of names of historical people whose lives ended by order of Mohamed as described in biographies, religious texts, peer reviewed scientific publications from both modern scholars and historians as well as works from antiquity? Without POV judgement, the names were simply listed. That article would prove that Muslims are bloodthirsty only to delusional people... Reliable sources do speak about this topic, its just you created a Catch-22 situation, so all sources that mention this topic automatically become unreliable, racist, discredited and full of hateful words. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

So, I point out that the incidents are cherrypicked from sources that don't actually discuss the list topic and that the goal was to make it seem that Muslims are particularly inclined to kill people, and your response is "But Muslims kill people! Sources say so!" Yes, that refutes my comment masterfully. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, must be getting walleye vision. I said those things or are you Synthesizing original research here? This is a discussion about the List of killings of Muhammad. You keep confusing the man's first name (Muhammad) with 1.5 billion followers of his religion (Muslims). You sure you marked the correct article for deletion and not accidentally pick the wrong cherry? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dude, words mean things. The fact that the argument for deletion is that the article is SYNTH, and that you apparently can't contradict that, doesn't mean that "omg SYNTH" is now a magic bullet response to anything anyone says to you, such as "your comment in no way refuted my argument." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dudette, if you say words mean things, than stop deceiving people by making up/lying/inventing quotes and attributing them to me. Anyone who reads whats written above can see clearly that you have 0 credibility for using your lies as the foundation to build your faulty arguments. If you have a hard time telling Republicans and Democrats apart as your page states, its possible you may be a bit out of your depth determining synth in books you've most likely never seen. Once a liar.... Since you are a proven emotion powered liar, I will not argue with you. Add to your page - Confuses Mohamed and Muslims; strong history of inventing over-the-top quotes and attribute them to editors i disagree with. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Since you no longer have anything to contribute to the discussion, I advise you to withdraw; you are only incriminating yourself further by continuing to comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Where are the reliable contemporary sources that discuss the topic of "killings of Muhammad". Yeah, didn't think so. The list hopelessly cobbles together "information" from sources of varying (low to very low) reliability. Roscolese summarises the problems well directly above. Wuqi55's contribution to the DRV is a devastating critique of the reliability of the sources. I adopt their reasoning as my own. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Political/Religious censorship is NOT acceptable on Wikipedia, this is the second time I've seen this article up for deletion, given there was no consensus the first time I'm not sure what going again is going to achieve, clearly those with imaginary friends will vote to delete whereas the more rational faction will vote to keep since the information (and any offence it might cause) can be easily avoided by simply not viewing it! Deleting it merely takes that choice away from the user and places it with censorious religious fundamentalists, is that what Wikipedia is for now? I hope not. Hideki (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've read this comment over three times and I don't see a policy-based "keep" rationale. Just random speculation, bordering on personal attacks, about other editors. If it helps you, I'm a Jewish agnostic and I think this article should be deleted because that's generally what we do with articles that have no sources discussing the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the consensus last time was to delete the article. Unflavoured (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I'm completely rational, subscribe to no religion and have no imaginary friends whatsoever and I voted to delete for completely rational reasons, so there's nothing "clear" about it. Don't characterise everyone with a different opinion as being a loony. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep or Rename: It is well-sourced (list of references consists of authoritative sources; as far as I know, and or most of these extra-Qur'an writings are and have been relevant to the study of Islam by Muslim scholars during centuries). The article has a well-defined topic that is verifiable (as opposed to something subjective things like "times when president Bush misbehaved", which would be subject to varying definitions of whether something was a misbehavior or not). Of course, nobody can verify all testimonies, whether a killing occurred or did not, or whether it was ordered or was not, but whether the testimony describes an ordering of a killing or not is undisputable. The article is also historically relevant in the same way as a list of crusades (of Christian church) is. It is biographically relevant in the same way as a list of Apostle Paul's visits to Jerusalem is. Any claims of supposed intents of the article's existence are unsourced, however. --Bisqwit (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• P.S. for finding research of references and notability, I suggest the web search "muhammad ordered killing -wikipedia" rather than the one suggested atop this AfD. --Bisqwit (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Can you give us some of the sources you found with this search? I'm finding...a lot of self-published anti-Muslim tracts and a few reliable sources that don't discuss the topic, just like before. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete even serial killers and notorious warlords don't have a "list of killings of.." articles. Totally inappropriate and no encyclopedic value other than to go along the lines of pseudo-academic anti-Islam websites. And this is not about censorship; content from that page can be easily squeezed in elsewhere. The title is borderline inflammatory for Muslims; an unnecessary political stance that the wiki community doesn't need. Tachfin (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging isn't the same as deleting. But where, exactly? It wouldn't be appropriate for the already-too-long Muhammad article. So where do you propose to merge it? The inflammatory title is irrelevant, that can easily be changed to "assassinations involving Muhammad" or something similar, not a reason to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not proposing a merge. The article doesn't bring any new information, I'm sure the different episodes that it mentions already exist somewhere else; most likely in the people allegedly killed articles. Since Muhamed was an important historical figure, there are many articles discussing the different aspects of his life (Political, religious, tribal, historic you name it). Thus, either some of the content already exist therein or can be added. We already have Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad, so I don't understand those who are shouting censorship. But to have a single purpose article that is un-neutral by definition (cherry picked incidents to prove a certain POV) is not appropriate. You can imagine the POV issues if people decide to imitate this article in other areas. Tachfin (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, honestly, I can't. I don't see this as POV at all, I don't see any of this as cherry picking, rather I see an attempt to present a comprehensive list. The fact of Muhammad's involvement in assassinations is a perfectly non-controversial subject dealt with neutrally in sources, such as the Gabriel source already cited. Military and political leaders throughout human history have used assassination as a political tool. So did Muhammad. Where's the POV?

Regarding other articles that may expand on this topic, keep in mind that this is a list article. By their nature, items in the list may have associated articles explaining things in more detail. List of common misconceptions, for example, lists what it says, and many of the articles linked therein also go into detail about a misconception pertaining to that topic. Having details in other articles isn't a reason to delete a list. Should it be a list article? A prose article may work better with the topic, and likely wouldn't generate the erroneous POV perception that this article has generated. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A list of Items suppose the existence of an article about each item. In this list, only 13 out of 43 have articles. The 13 even include tribes and battles...All of this is actually already covered in Military career of Muhammad. Maybe you're genuinely unassuming but take "List of killings of X" and replace X by a random person/organization at some point the POV-pushing and WP:SYNTH will strike you. The fact that there were deaths which Muhammad had more or less something to do with them, isn't one of the most defining features of the subject unless someone is trying to prove a biased point. It's no wander that it is the first "List of killings of" article. Tachfin (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thirteen is not enough for a list? I believe you proved the point that this article is salvageable. At one point some article became the first biography of a king, soldier or clown. Being first is controversial and that's why instead of dumping this article over semantics, its best to keep working on it. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. A soapbox article with an inherently non-neutral title and consisting of original synthesis. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already refuted in the first AfD. The title can be changed. There is no synthesis if sources discuss the topic (as they do) or discuss the individual items in the list. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Appears to be reliably sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which are these reliable sources that discuss the subject? (Sources are not reliable in a vacuum.) It's all very well to claim that people are trying to censor you (omg noooo) but do you make the same complaints at AfDs for teenage bit-part actors and amateur films? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. I really do not see the point of this article. Mohammed was a military leader in a brutal age; he had people killed. We do not have a list of people killed by other such leaders and neither should we. It is not political or religious censorship, but merely calling for deletion of a pointless and unnecessary article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep.It is well sourced.It's information might be of use to some people. --Sam 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where are these sources that discuss the subject (a necessary hurdle for the existence of an article), and why do you believe WP:ITSUSEFUL will compensate for this absence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong delete A perfect implementation of a WP:POV fork as defined under our neutrality policy: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". Inherently violates WP:NPOV because an article about this topic is inherently WP:UNDUE weight. Created by a single purpose account who sees Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for anti-Islamic propaganda. Our policy on WP:Neutral point of view implores us to delete articles that are formulated in a way that can never be neutral. See the essay WP:Be neutral in form and the policy WP:Attack page. There's no coincidence that the first list of this kind isn't about the killings of a modern gangster, a four star general, or even a Fascist dictator. The first list of this kind targets a religious figure revered by a billion people. These contributions are not good faith contributions to neutral encyclopedic knowledge. Dzlife (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep -- perhaps renamed to include "ordered by". This is an unsavoury aspect of his career, which certain Muslims would no doubt like to bury, but the WP WP:NPOV principle measn that it should be kept. The article is well-sourced, and I presume the chroniclers cited are virtually the only sources available. It is not mere anti-islamic propaganda, since it has plenty of reliable sources, or at least as reliable as are available from a remote period. Of course there is no list of "killings by Jesus Christ" or "killings by Buddha", because there were none. Jesus reversed three natural deaths, as well as his own. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where are these reliable sources that actually discuss the subject (a necessary hurdle for the existence of an article), as opposed to biographies from which the creator has cherry-picked incidents to make an attack page? (That is the NPOV issue. There are no sources discussing killings of Muhammad? Then we don't let editors use original synthesis to create an article with the aim of promoting the idea that Muslims are particularly bloodthirsty.) You yourself in your comment seem to be admitting that there aren't any sources (if the chroniclers are "virtually the only sources available" and they don't discuss the subject...), so why are you letting this "let's stick it to some Muslims" non-policy-based keep argument trump the "no sources" policy-based delete argument? Neither I, the original nominator, nor most of the other users voting to delete are Muslim, so trying to use people's religious views to discredit their arguments would fail even if that weren't a WP:NPA violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrelevant. As has been repeatedly pointed out to Roscelese, sources that "discuss the subject" are NOT a requirement for a LIST article (in spite of that, sources actually do discuss the subject, making one wonder why the deletion proponents are so keen to denigrate any source that does without proper review). Lists are by their nature collections of items that share a common characteristic. See our Wikipedia:Featured list articles for examples.

It has also been pointed out repeatedly that assassinations are a well-known part of Arabian history, and no respected historian considers Muhammad's involvement in such assassinations as controversial or anti-Muslim. The fact that self-published anti-Islam sources point this out is irrelevant; the article does not rely on such sources. Numerous sources by notable historians give it a trivial mention, further indicating that it isn't a controversial topic to anyone except those deletion proponents who feel the article bashes Muslims somehow. Since when did this AfD become a forum to trot out the same tired old arguments? How about something original for a change? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Reliable sources are not an absolute defense to WP:POV pushing. If you take reliable information and WP:SYNthezie it around a cherry-picked topic, you can imply a very powerful and biased point. (For example, Killings under Margaret Thatcher's premiership could be supported with a lot of statistics. Killings in the name of Jesus Christ would also be verifiable.) There is nothing wrong with using reliable sources to verify violent acts, as we have already done in the articles Muhammad and Caravan raids. The problem is cherrypicking those facts and sources around an inherently WP:POV topic, thus creating a stealth WP:ATTACKPAGE. Our job is to disseminate knowledge, not to give editors a WP:SOAPBOX to assemble references around whatever argument they're pushing. Dzlife (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What evidence do you have that this list constitutes POV pushing? It simply lists assassinations involving Muhammad. Among legitimate scholars of Arabian history, I have found no controversy about this. It's simply a fact of history. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • This doesn't 'simply list assassinations' - for example, the page includes the Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Dumatul Jandal), and a 'Man from Aslam tribe' (effectively a judicial killing). The trouble with 'simply listing' 'simple facts' is that the non-simple context of these incidents cannot be explained in a list format. Notable assassinations involving Muhammad can be (and already are) documented elsewhere, where subtleties of historical background can be treated properly. The sole fact of the existence of such assassinations doesn't mean that a 'list of killings' is the best way to document them. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This is a pretty good point. However, it justifies rewriting more than it justifies deletion. I would prefer the subject to be treated differently than a list article, myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The topic is already well treated, if you look at Military career of Muhammad, Muslim conquests, Caravan raids and so on. There's already some borderline POV issues in those articles, but they can be resolved through normal editing, unlike this article. The problem is this article in its title is designed to exclude any context and to merely list the "killings". It's so inherently designed as a POV fork to paint the violence in as negative a light as possible that the policy would even justify deleting this title as a redirect. None of that should be taken as a policy to outright censor Muhammad's military actions, where presented in a neutral context in a wider article. Dzlife (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Smerdis of Tlön. It doesn't matter how well-sourced it is, because this material has an inherently non-NPOV title and its content needs to be rewritten from scratch. Therefore a "keep" !vote makes no sense. The only thing it would be acceptable to "keep" would be different content with a different name.—S Marshall T/C 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As other contributors have pointed out, above, articles can be retitled. No offense, but you seem to be acknowledging that the topic itself is worth covering. What I think doesn't make sense is insisting on a deletion on a topic you acknowledge is worth covering, when articles can be rewritten in place, and when renaming can be trivially performed when necessary. Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Leaning keep Has the list of Muhammad's killings actually been commented-on by third-party sources? I don't mean mentions of his killings, but scholarly commentary on them as a whole. If we find such commentary, we could put together such a list. I'm more sympathetic to religious articles such as this at AfD. There has been over a thousand years of academic study on Islam and I'd be suprised if no scholar ever worked on Muhammad's killings. The rename "ordered by Muhammad" suggested above would help the article's perceived POV problems. ThemFromSpace 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's the absence of sources that I'm talking about. At the last AfD, there was one source that was borderline useful, but the others were various anti-Muslim tracts that, to quote myself, wouldn't be reliable sources if they were published on JihadWatch today and aren't reliable just because they were printed on paper in the nineteenth century. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no absence of sources, and characterizations of some as "anti-Muslim tracts" is not a useful personal opinion. One of those (Muir) happens to be an historically significant source by a notable historian; not including it because of an "anti-Muslim" perception strikes me as a blatant violation WP:NPOV, which requires that articles should reflect the sources available. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right... so we accept an "anti-Muslim" source as reliable in an article about killings allegedly ordered by Islam's last and most important prophet... Articles are to reflect the reliable sources available. You can say Muir is "historically significant" all you like. That doesn't make him reliable. Try again. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can claim it's unreliable all you like. This isn't the place to make that determination. It is a significant source by a notable historian. Your opinion on its reliability, simply by virtue of a perceived bias of the author, is completely irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Notable person" =/= "reliable source." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But notable as an historian does suggest that the source be given some weight, especially taken in the proper context. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Some have demanded reliable sources with discussion of "killings (or assassinations) ordered by Muhammad." See [1] which says "The Jews had correctly concluded from the murders ordered by Muhammad that they would be attacked next. They did not foresee, however, that the attack would occur so suddenly." per the snippet in the search page at [2]. Other books in the list also discuss such killings. A referenced list, of historical significance. Keep per the arguments of Bisqwit. Edison (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You have cited from a book the blurb of which is "This comprehensive meticulously documented collection of scholarly articles presents indisputable evidence that a readily discernible and uniquely Islamic antisemitism has been expressed continuously since the advent of Islam. The contributors show that the Koran itself is a significant source of hostility towards Jews as well as other foundational texts". It is a work that is written by and panders to the far right. So think again.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, by citing a book by Bostom from an anti-religious publisher you're not exactly refuting the argument that it's only unreliable attack sources that discuss this idea. (Also, your snippet quote doesn't even indicate anything.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • So, any source critical of Muhammad is automatically deemed "unreliable"? (I'm not commenting on the specific source mentioned above, but in general.) On what grounds? That seems to be what your position has been so far. Please clarify. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No, I don't think we're going to move this into generalities. If you want to defend a source from a guy with no academic expertise in the subject (he's a professor of medicine), known for anti-Muslim polemics and not for scholarship, publishing in a house of an anti-religious bent, defend it on whatever grounds you think you can. If you have another source, we can deal with that one on its own - we're skilled that way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Yes, I think we do need to speak about generalities, because "unreliable" appears (to me at least) to be how you've been characterizing the sources in general in the same breath as commenting on anti-Muslim bias. I agree that the specific source mentioned above isn't appropriate, though. So I ask again, is it your position that any source critical of Muhammad is to be considered unreliable? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Poor criteria for inclusion, which result in grouping together assassinations and other types of killings, and the fact that the article is framed as a list forces it into a format which isn't suited to historical contextualisation, but sets it up to be a SOAPbox. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely agree that a list format isn't the best way to treat the subject of assassinations involving Muhammad. But that in itself isn't a reason to delete it. The use of assassination as a political tool in Arabian history is an interesting general topic, for which Muhammad can be used as a prominent example. It would be nice to see the article expanded and generalized rather than deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But what you're saying now is essentially that we should change everything about the article: its title, structure, and content. How is this different from deleting and rewriting from scratch? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admittedly not much. Note that I have abstained on !voting in this round. I am just challenging arguments that appear to be invalid, that's all. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per Dzlife. Though there are sources for the various events gathering them together in this fashion is WP:SYNTH. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm a bit torn here as this does seem to be a somewhat notable topic and I would find it hard to imagine that this hasn't been studied at all in the last millennium or so. Bit it is certainly hard to find unbiased scholarship on the issue and a page like this would hard to write in a neutral fashion. And one might argue that the Killings of King David, Moses, Popes etc. would be just as valid and this could lead to a lot of wiki-conflict. So maybe it is best to make sure that we cover the killings in Military career of Muhammad and similar pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. The article meets general notibility guidelines and is well sourced. Alternatively it could be Merged with Military career of Muhammad. Pass a Method talk 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've read the comments above. I don't have something very original to say, but I agree with Mark Arsten that virtually any leader, political or military, who has signed off death warrants qualifies for such a "List of killings of". ("list of killings of Lucius Cornelius Sulla"? "list of killings of Henry VIII of England"? "list of killings of Catherine de' Medici"?) Never mind soldiers, especially snipers. We don't even have a "list of killings of Carlos Hathcock". It's clear this topic (killings of Muhammad) is even more artificial, as he didn't do them himself; the events should be discussed in context in the appropriate articles, not in this table. I think the comments of User:Dzlife highlighting why this table is a WP:POVFORK are also relevant. Note for example that Muhammad's order to kill 'Asma' bint Marwan is presented as certain fact in this table, while the article linked is more circumspect: "Some classical and post-classical hadith scholars such as Al-Albani, Majdi, and Al-Jawzi have rejected the story, with some declaring it as fabrication, pointing out in their arguments that the chains of transmission by which the story was transmitted are all weak." Even Amatulić admits that a proper treatment of this topic amounts to deleting this table. And there's not much else here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTRELIABLE -- The references used in this article are predominantly primary sources from early Muslim scholars, namely Hadith that have beeen transmitted orally. The use of these as reliable historical sources have been largely questioned among Western scholarship. See [[3]]. Hence, unless each or, at least, most of the listed incidents can be supported by more than just Hadith and Tabari, the article's reliability is questionable.

WP:THIRDPARTY -- As well as being heavily dependant on Hadith sources, the article lacks substantial references from third-pary sources - which also calls into question the topic's notability (WP:NOTE), as suggested above. From the references, only three or four out of the fourty-three are corroborated by works of Muir or Watt. Temperamental1 (talk)

• Delete per WP:POVFORK and lack of reliable sources that discuss the topic (as opposed to mentioning individual instances). Also compare List of killings of Richard Nixon, List of killings of Ghengis Khan, List of killings of Napoleon, List of killings of William the Conquerer, List of killings of Lucretia Borgia, List of killings of Jesus of Nazareth, List of killings of Urban II... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF NYyankees51 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  ...which says "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" (emphasis added for your benefit). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think the point that Stephan Schulz is trying to make (and surely the one I was making) is that no serious reference work takes such an approach to historical figures, especially leaders, whose responsibility for killings may or may not be direct or uncontestable. There's a good reason why stuff of a certain kind doesn't exist. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  WP:Other stuff exists, Tachfin (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have obviously not read what you link to. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what you mean but WP:OTHERSTUFF (a.k.a WP:OTHERCRAP) is not the same as WP:Other stuff exists. In short automatically flashing the "otherstuff" essay whenever someone makes a comparison isn't always valid. Although comparisons are not a conclusive test, they form a part of the overall argument, so an entire comment absolutely should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement. This is what WP:Other stuff exists is about. The essay might have become vague in meaning as it got edited over time, the original version is clearer. In this case it's perfectly valid since there isn't one Precedent even for people whose job is killing. Tachfin (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by that link. :-) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You welcome :) Tachfin (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Let’s sum up the main arguments of those in favor of censorship. The primary argument used to kill this article is: “Why are you doing this list if not to stir up trouble WP:SOAP? It’s an attack and POV WP:SYNTHESIS from biased racists or writers I don’t like. Even if we admit that the list is 100% factual, notable, reliable and verifiable, its existence threatens the way that Mohamed is perceived WP:ATTACK by readers of Wikipedia. This article will be misused to enflame islamophobia, and is against my agenda and political philosophy. It’s better to let sleeping dogs lie.”

There are over 100 references and about a dozen books by Muslim authors from the last 20 years including from well-known peer reviewed publishing houses. This information was not cherry picked, since nobody is hiding or disputing it but editors with an anti-religious agenda. SOAP doesn’t apply since a number of geometrically opposite conclusions could be reached from reading that list (brilliant general who used contemporary tactics to the fullest, is one such conclusion.)

Synthesis doesn’t apply to the entire article. If (as someone claimed) 13 of the killings were written about in a reliable source, is that not notable? That is not Synthesis. Is there a benchmark for a total number of assassinations by a major historical figure to reach before it becomes notable?

There is no POV here. It’s a list supported by academic secondary sources. Anti-Semites interpret a list with the number of Holocaust victims and their names as a badge of honor while other see it as an unspeakable horror. The total number of victims and their names, are just a list, the POV comes from interpretation and personal biases.

This list can and should be salvaged. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikt:cherry picking; WP:SYNTH –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So for cherry picking, you are saying that the list was compiled from selectively picked, well documented, ripe, attractive cherries (assassinations), while editors ignored the dozens of other killings which are not as well documented? Or are you saying that assassinations were picked from a massive list of kind, humane deeds; and now to balance the list, we would need to add a good deed for every assassination? ... 'Monday 11am. ordered Abdul killed.' 'Tuesday 9pm. Caught thief terrorizing the village.'?

WP:SYNTH I addressed. Opponents of the article are cherry picking sources which match their ideology and only consider those reliable and valid. A Catch-22 is also created since for a source to be considered reliable it must not mention views contrary to the ideology of the censors. Lets work with what we have here, trim it down, polish it up, and we'll have a GA in no time. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to such a silly comment, but I guess I'm compulsive: no, "views contrary to the ideology of the censors" (lol) do not disqualify a source. It is sources where the author has no academic background in the subject, where the source is recognized as poorly researched by other parties, and/or where accuracy is intentionally subordinated to agenda that are being discarded here, and really this is how Wikipedia works and should work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given Wikipedia's processes for peer review I would not be surprised if this is voted a featured article by some, but you still have to explain how removing context and discussion of primary source credibility does not create a WP:POVFORK. Concrete examples have been given above, and you have not addressed them. Nor have you addressed the general problem that historical "facts" are not always certain and there may be a range of opinion on the credibility of primary sources, and this type of discussion is not suitable for a table. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have an overall problem with POV being used as a reason for its removal. The language can easily be toned down, which is unlikely to create a POVFORK... murder/assassination changed to 'x ordered his followers/army to kill/end the life of/put to death person y'. If that statement is backed up by sources, it is not POV since nobody is disputing that the events occurred, but the opposition demands an unreasonable number of references, shooting down perfectly valid references with vague objections - islamaphobe, too old, not notable enough. If there is credibility issues with the primary source, Quran and commentary written by contemporaries of Mohamed, not many publications will be found on that subject since even disputing the credibility of those texts (or altering them) is punishable by death in a number of Islamic countries. You also mention the problem about accuracy of historical records yet these very records are the basis for the rest of academic writing on the topic, and are widely used and accepted both in Wikipedia Islamic articles and other publications. I think its the opposition that needs to explain how the topic itself influences the certainty of the same historical events, since in other articles no one questions the certainty of these same events.

I think that (a) toning down the language (b) writing in neutral prose Mohamed's orders to put to death certain people as it is agrred upon, and removing those killings which are causing the biggest problem, will still create a valuable neutral list. Can add introduction that this form of warfare strategy (preemptive strike) was the norm at the time. Scrapping the whole article is a mistake, since sources, synth, povfork are not the primary reasons for people objecting - its a sensitive subject that is not politically correct and will make people sleep easier if the topic just disappeared. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you read the recently improved (by me) article on William Muir, you'll see that his early works, especially his Life of Mahomet (which is heavily referenced in this table) are not "perfectly valid references" if by that you mean reasonably neutral and accepted as such by later historians. They speak of Muir's opinions, as any work speaks of the author's opinion at a point in time. And some of Muir's opinions had changed dramatically over his lifetime. They have been criticized by Muir's contemporaries and by later scholars. (Life of Mahomet has been described by a contemporary review in The Times as "propagandist writing" with Christian bias and as "odium theologicum".) The lack of discussion in this table is contravening WP:NPOV, and the format is not suitable to amendments. Most of the significant material in this table has been cherry picked from other articles by discarding such nuances, thus making it a WP:POVFORK. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You sure hold yourself to a different set of standards when you edit articles. You added a whole section earlier today to William Muir full of information critical of William Muir, basing it all on 10 pages from 1 ultra-anti-Muir source. I removed your Times quote, since you didn't reference it and checking Google, all i found was 1 result - from you. Loved how you used such a POV source accusing him of being a crusader, a propagandist, a christian fanatic. "Nevertheless, his earlier hypercritical Life of Mahomet was used as a poster child by contemporary Muslim" ... wow, and you are here complaining about POV when you make statements like the previous sentence? And you did all this today eh? Now you are on this page loudly proclaiming Muir is a weak source to use for List of Killings Articles, and all basing that on your own POV edits and unreferenced quotes. Cute! Meishern (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your sneaky vandalism and unwarranted accusation [4] has been noted and reverted. The quote is referenced from the only book-length biography of William Muir (and his brother) The book's author academic page is here. I suppose you object to her so strongly because it's not one of the trashy anti-Islam authors that fill your web knowledge. Keep up your disruptive editing and you'll find that the only encyclopedia you can edit is Conservapedia. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. Consider looking up the meaning of the word sneaky. I will save my retort for the talk page of the article. I stand behind what I said. Cheers!Meishern (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider reading the meaning of minor edit. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Delete Poor criteria for inclusion, sources are questionable and not verifiable. The tone "list of killings" is not very encyclopedic, what about list of killings for G Bush?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) questionable sources ---This article previously had over 150 references, and currently has over 100 references. Each and every one of the 100+ reference is from a questionable source? over 75% of the sources are Muslim (Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Haykal, Mubarakpuri, etc... These sources are highly respected and are unbiased.

2) sources unverifiable ---Is there a particular source that you feel is unverifiable or all 100+ sources? Is it that the authenticity of the source that's troubling you or its verifability? The Sunni haddith (Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari) are used as primary sources which the Sunni Muslims consider to be the most authentic sources after the Quran. Ibn Ishaq's biography is used which classical Muslim scholars consider a 'sure authority' on this subject. Here is what is said about Ibn Ishaq's biography (reference: [1])"Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is held by the majority of the learned as a sure authority in the Traditions, and no one can be ignorant of the high character borne by his work," the Maghazi; "Whoever wishes to know the history of the Muslim conquests, let him take Ibn Ishaq for guide," advises ibn Shihab az-Zuhri (vol II pg. 584); al-Bukhari himself cites Ibn Ishaq in his stories. ash-Shafi'i reportedly proclaimed: "Whoever wishes to obtain a complete acquaintance with "the (Muslim) conquests, (they) must borrow this information from Ibn Ishaq"

3) what about list of killings for G Bush --- WP:OTHERSTUFF, not a valid reason for removal

4) title change - i also agree. However the title change alone should not justify complete deletion. Cheeers! Meishern (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The references used in this article are predominantly primary sources from early Muslim scholars, namely Hadith that have beeen transmitted orally. The use of these as reliable historical sources have been largely questioned among academic scholarship. To quote from Criticism_of_Hadith#Western_Criticism:

John Esposito notes that "Modern Western scholarship has seriously questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith", maintaining that "the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad were actually written much later." He mentions Joseph Schacht as one scholar who argues this, claiming that Schacht "found no evidence of legal traditions before 722," from which Schacht concluded that "the Sunna of the Prophet is not the words and deeds of the Prophet, but apocryphal material" dating from later.[16] Though other scholars, such as Wilferd Madelung, have argued that "wholesale rejection as late fiction is unjustified".[17] Other non-Muslim scholars of Islam, such as Maurice Bucaille and Cyrus Hamlin also criticize Hadith.[18][19][20] Also see Hadith#Western_academic_scholarship

Basically what the issue here is that being recorded in hadith, these incidents are believed by Muslims - however they are not regarded as authentic historiographic sources.

This unreliability is further attested to by the severe lack of WP:THIRDPARTY sources - of which there would, more than likely, be plenty, if the topic were notable. There are less than 5 (of the 43 listed) cases that are referenced by third-party sources, even those use the same source. Temperamental1 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Temperamental1, I took a quick look at the "Other non-Muslim scholars of Islam" that point [17] above lists, and I think that passage may need revision. If the views of this small group are to be believed over thousands of Muslim scholars, they must be credible, so look for yourself:

(a) Maurice Bucaille was a gastroenterologist and an amateur Egyptologist who wanted to prove that the Quran was written by God himself. Most of his books are on ancient Egyptian medicine and mummy autopsies. Above, he is labeled as a non-Muslim scholar yet he states in interview that his "inner soul cried out that Al- Quran was the Word of Allah revealed to his Last Prophet Mohammed." Not sure why an amateur explorer of digestive tracts of Egyptian Mummies is even listed as an authority on dating Hadith.

(b) Cyrus Hamlin Wealthy Firebrand Protestant minister/missionary in Ottoman Turkey in mid 19th century and close relative of VP of USA and 2 civil war generals. Educated in a seminary, he spoke no Arabic and was an administrative director of a network of missions. He wrote two books filled with amusing anecdotes about spending 20 years converting Muslims in Ottoman Turkey.

Is either (a) or (b) a scholar of Islam, an authority on Hadith? So on one side we have thousands of Islamic scholars and on the other side we have a wealthy American missionary in Ottoman Turkey converting the locals and an amateur proctologist to the Pharaohs?

(c) Joseph Schacht was a German British world caliber Islamic Historian who came up with an extremely controversial hypothesis which goes against all past research, documents, and traditions. He is considered the father of the revisionist movement which is very controversial (to put it mildly).

You argument may be valid for that sentence of the quotation - however that does not change the fact that Western scholarship does not accept Hadith's as reliable historical sources at all - hence an article entirely based on it and only one or two third-party sources does not stand the Wikipedia guidelines.

post-scriptum: I should also point out that none of the scources actually discuss the subject/topic. Simple mentioning one incident does not suffice, to reiterate, as per guidelines, WP:THIRDPARTY sources are needed and is likely of questionable WP:NOTE as a result. Temperamental1 (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temperamental1, you made a statement and backed it up by listing western experts, and i proved 2 to be fakes and 1 to be the father of the controversial revisionist movement. Now you state that "Western scholarship does not accept Hadith's as reliable historical sources at all". Western scholarship does not accept Quran, Torah or New Testament as reliable historic sources but categorizes them as the Iliad, since the existence of all religious prophets from those book can not be established by western empirical standards such as used to prove that Julius Caesar existed. I am not sure that acceptance by Islamic Western Scholarship is a requirement for entry into an encyclopedia, since most of it is very new, revisionist, and extremely controversial. This is a touchy subject, I myself wish more academics would explore the motives for the killings (and create thirdparty), but as can be seen by the comments here, this subject raises uncomfortable questions, with few even more uncomfortable answers that few academics would be thanked for exploring. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(this belongs above temperamental1 above)The year 722 was written inside the oldest Hadith found which contained the caligrophy of the year. Not ever Hadith had this feature, so until the next Hadith is found with a lower year, 722 is the guess of the revisionist movement. The vast majority of historians and scholars reject this number. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meishern, the quotes above are about Ibn Ishaq the person, not the raw/edited/translated material cited in the article. Another important point is that Ibn Ishaq expressed caution or skepticism about some of the stories he collected (See Guillaume's introduction, p. xix and later). One example mentioned by Guillaume is the killing of al-Ḥārith ibn Suwayd, currently being reported as fact in the article despite that Ibn Ishaq was more skeptical of it. This is an example of how ignoring reliable sources would lead to articles that are bound to misrepresent the primary sources. We should avoid turning what is said to be alleged, disputed, rumored in the primary sources into a quantitative list of facts here on Wikipedia. Given that hadith is no less problematic than sīra, the same concerns apply to most of the names and events mentioned in the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note Meishern has a self-admitted anti-Muslim bias, and has demonstrated more interest in POV pushing that building a neutral encyclopedia. He loses the entitlement of a good faith assumption by accusing all "delete" !voters of trying to "censor" Wikipedia to advance their "agenda and political philosophy". He ignores that most of us are fine with Military career of Muhammad being presented in its full context, whereas an austere "list of killings" will be inherently an WP:ATTACK WP:POVFORK. He will likely accuse anyone he disagrees with as being a POV warrior, but Meishern's record shows the exact opposite is true. Dzlife (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry you lost your good faith assumption in me DZlife. Three edits in thousands in 3 years is all you found to make you lose faith? Let me earn it back.

It would have been easier to link User talk:meishern, where I answered and apologized for my 1 post last year. I appologized on the complete voting thread, where I also apologized [Apologized]. Not as if I am hiding anything.

Two days before September 11, 2010, I was remembering my two very good friends who were working in Tower 1 on 9/11 with a large bottle of vodka. I got roaring drunk. On Wikipedia I wrote a short ugly comment about the Koran and Muslims for the Deletion !vote of the Burn Koran Day article. I apologized on Wikipedia delete section and on my talk page when I sobered up. Got death threats. It's all there on my User talk:meishern. Good work Dzlife! The rest of what you wrote, not so good.

Just look at the [complete meishern edits that DZlife doesn't want you to see] and my explanation of the edits on [article talk page]. They unknowingly were using a photo of captured SS members (and accidentaly released) grinning at the camera to demonstrate happy returning German POWs. Thanks to my change of the photo caption, that page stoped using that photo now which embarrased it when former SS comander of Sobibor Camp 3 Kurt Bolender (page I created on Wikipedia) accused of killing 88,000 civilians released by mistake is used as an example of German POW repatriation. Is that disruptive? POV warrior? Also, I created a comparison between the treatment of POWs in the same war by both sides, so I added information (backed by 3 different references) showing the total of German POW captured and released alive, and total of Russian POWs captured and released alive. Is that POV pushing? One editor thought it was POV, so he removed the part about Russian POWs, now unbalanced and one sided. No edit wars, no accusations, no reverts by me. No Accusations. Sorry to disapoint you DZlife, I made article neutral and when overruled, didn't whine, accuse, or search for dirt in editing histories.

As it regards to this article, I would be fine with showing the total number of assassinations comitted by Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Mohamed. I am against censorship and witholding notable information across the board. Thats why I don't delete anything from my talk page like some editors. I support people's rights to burn flags or books or their bras. I dislike censorship in the name of some greater abstract good which for some reason is important to you.

The forces of censorship are mobilizing and calling on reinforcements as they are starting to smell defeat in their quest for censorship! Thanks Dzlife, a C+ for effort of unmasking this professional POV pushing warrior bigot. Don't worry I wont dig into your history, no skeletons in your closet. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.

• Strong Keep. And DYK as well. Deletion would constitute censorship.--Galassi (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • • I shall content myself by noting, as perhaps illustrative of this user's lack of policy comprehension with regard to project pages such as AFD, that the article is ineligible for DYK. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps the economic history of the Jews referenced from Werner Sombart and similar scholars now seen as Torah caricaturists should not have been deleted either but "DYK as well" in the name of fighting censorship?! It is sometimes the case that the first Western scholars to tackle a field—like Muir has been for Islam and Sombart for the economic history of the Jews—are no longer considered particularly authoritative. (It's amusing what kind of historians one finds referenced in the ArbCom pages, by the way.) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. It is a case of systemic bias, and a POV-fork. If this article remains, I'm going start a list of killings by Moses, with special emphasis on those ordered by God. It's actually a rather long list. I trust nobody will object. Noloop (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete because it is ani-muslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.249.37.156 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — 188.249.37.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

• Not a deletion rationale in and of itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. List is a notable topic as attested by the sources within the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I assume you meant "by reliable sources." Which sources would these be? Please name some of them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Another randomly chosen example of why this a POVFORK: read the description of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf in that article, and compare it with his description in this table. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The list is notable. Over 100 sources support the list. Amatulic's point is extremely compelling: "Lists are by their nature are collections of items that share a common characteristic." – Lionel ^(talk) 09:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per dzlife. See also my comment above and at the DRV about the reliability of the sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete feels like a WP:OR WP:COATRACK attack on a religion. No reliable source that discusses the issue in any kind of detail has been provided. I feel pages like this _can_ exist (it's not inherently POV), the sourcing standards I'd want go up however. Find a mainstream academic publication that largely covers the topic (killing Muhammad is responsible for) and I'd likely change to neutral. Find two, and I might change to keep. As it is it feels very patched together (OR) and seems to me to have the purpose of attacking the religion. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hobit, please take a look at the books below with some quotes:

1) "...assassination was becoming Muhammad's primary tool of influencing events..."...""Weakened militarily, Muhammad shifted the struggle to political grounds using assassination as a means to inflict violence." Gabriel, Richard A (2007). Muhammad: Islam's First Great General. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-8061-3860-2.

2) William Muir sources discuss specific assassinations in great detail. William Muir (1861), The life of Mahomet, Smith, Elder and co, p. 130

3) "In this sense, the use of assassinations by Muhammad went outside the experience of his opponents", Rodgers, Russ (2008). Fundamentals of Islamic Asymmetric Warfare: A Documentary Analysis of the Principles of Muhammad. Mellen Edwin Press. p. 154. ISBN 978-0-7734-4988-6. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By my count, there are 5 assassinations in the article. There are 38 non-assassinations (including non-killings). Unflavoured (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, Edwin Mellen Press is not a reliable source (they're recognized throughout academic as a vanity press), so what a book published by them says is irrelevant. Muir's discussion of specific assassinations in detail is also meaningless, regardless of whether we accept Muir as a reliable source - if he doesn't discuss killings of Muhammad as a topic, the amount of detail he gives on individual incidents only serves to write about those incidents. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a reason to delete. A list article need not have the sources discussing the topic of the list. Our featured lists have a number of articles like that. Whether this article should be a list is another question, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"We don't need sources discussing the topic" is fine - it's an argument with which I disagree, but it's fine. I responded because Meishern seemed to be arguing, in response to Hobit, that the Muir source did discuss the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did look over the sources. We've got 3 books, none of which look or feel like realistic academic sources. One is written by a reasonable military historian who seems to have an axe to grind. One is _really_ old and doesn't feel like an academic work to me. The last I can't see. I'd like to see some scholorship by someone who studies the subject and doesn't seem to have a axe to grind. Even then, the sources don't discuss the list as a topic. Given the nature of the list (pejorative toward a religion) I'd want solid and better sources. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. per WP:OR WP:COATRACK. Sole Soul (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:POVFORK. It's not exactly standard Wikipedia practice to have a "List of killings by" page for other historical religious, military, or political figures, so the fact that Muhammad is singled out for a page like this seems like pretty clear POV axe-grinding. There are a ton of historical figures who have killed lots of people, but there's no List of Killings of Augustus Caesar, or Belisarius, or whoever. Notable, sourced mentions of deaths caused or ordered by historical figures certainly have a place in their associated articles, but just dumping a big list like this as its own page is pretty inappropriate. Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Merging with Criticism of Muhammad or Criticism of Islam might be reasonable, but these articles are already too big. Hence it makes more sense keeping this supplementary list separately per readability reasons. The list is notable as it is about a founder of religion that was claimed as promoting violence or promoting peace, depending on the source. Such lists would not be justified for other historical personalities. "of" should be replaced by "by".Biophys (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep - This page has 122 web sources and 10 further book sources. Political correctness and censorship are not reasons to delete articles. Ever. Toa Nidhiki05 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then it's a good thing that that's not why people are arguing for deletion, isn't it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yep. The only ones invoking the ol' "political correctness" and "censorship" trope are the keeps. A weak straw man to avoid the WP:POVFORK issue. Dzlife (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Actually the deletion proponents have been arguing "NPOV violation" since the first AfD, and as was pointed out by others in the deletion review, that isn't grounds for deletion. There isn't a POV fork issue. Any POV issues can be fixed without deleting (renaming the article would be a good start). The topic of political assassination in Arabian history, and also by Muhammad's involvement, is not controversial. Sources have been presented in the article and the last two debates that discuss neutrally both the topic and individual assassinations. The fact that biased sources also discuss it seems to be the main reason the deletion proponents keep screaming "POV fork!" — but it's an irrelevant point. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete This is an anti-Muslim POV page. One would never write such things about the Jewish religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.59.2 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — 108.52.59.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.