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 keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quran code[edit]

Quran code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unlike the Bible code, I am just not seeing any significant independent coverage of the claims here, the previous nomination in 2017 went for delete, and I don't think the situation with regards to sourcing has changed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's obviously complete pablum but the for question here is: is it notable pablum? The references do not give me confidence that it is and WP:BEFORE does not disclose much in the way of better sources. The originator of the "theory" wrote some self-published and apparently small-press books about it in the 70's but, unlike, say, his contemporary Von Daniken, that writing does not seem to have made much impact in the wider culture. The other references are all to personal blogs and websites and message boards. Even the book cited as criticism is published via an advertising agency. This is all non-RS material. The truly staggering amount of WP:OR involved does not help matters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I learned of this theory forty years ago and it’s fairly well known. A Google book search for ‘code 19 quran’ brings up a number of works discussing the theory, though in how much depth I don’t know. A general search for the same term shows abundant sources, though how many of them might count as reliable I can’t be sure. Mccapra (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I agree with Mccapra. The topic should easily pass WP:GNG. Although I consider it to be somewhat fringe. But Muslims around the world take it very seriously. Many populist scholars have written a great deal about it. Mosesheron (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hello all, I created this article also in the German wikipedia, and I wanted to translate this article into English. 1.The Bible Code and Quran Code are to separate things. The Bible Code is based on steganography that is looking at word/text/letter spacing, the Quran code is based on check sums, different enumerations and looking if those kind of enumerations correlate. "The other references are all to personal blogs and websites and message boards." Those blogs, website, and message boards are not mine. I have also included other websites and books, which are not from Rashad Khalifa, please mention that. "Even the book cited as criticism is published via an advertising agency." Which book do you mean? The book of Bilal Philips is not created by Rashad Khalifa, but by a traditional Islamic Scholar who is a critic of this code. To say that the majority of the article is not original research is wrong, I even took time and referred the counting with an Quran software, and I want to portray those examples as Claims in Wikipedia. It is a Neutral Point of view, if there is critic, than you can contribute, by writing constructive critic, with suitable references, and not just mere opinions or just deleting almost all the examples trying to explain the Quran Code Conceptions to the reader. Rilum (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the majority of the article is not original research is wrong I couldn't have put it better my self. I know that the double negative is probably not what you intended to say but you accurately summarized the problem nonetheless. You still don't seem to grasp that, when you publish on a Wikipedia page research you did by counting the things you thought were pertinent, that is unmistakable your original research. If the article survives this discussion. you should refrain from further such editing. Furthermore, "NPOV" doesn't mean "add pages of stuff and tack on a paragraph of criticism." Eggishorn (talk)

Those counts are not from me! They are mostly from Rashad Khalifa and Submission.org I included the software references in order that the reader can PROOF or CHECK for himself if those proclaimed counts are wrong. The count of certain initials is controversial, everyone can decide for him/herself whether those counts are right or wrong. I gave those references in order to give the reader a certain "help" to verify those counts for himself. I did not publish those counts by myself, those are claims, research done by others already. Most of the counts can be seen in Rashad Khalifas book "The computer speak: God's message to the world", see this link: https://submission.ws/downloads/the_computer_speaks.pdf . Page 108 following. Submission.org corrected some countings of Rashad Khalifa: https://submission.org/verify_updated_count_ALM_ALR.html "Disclaimer: A thorough recount of the Quranic initials, conducted in 2002, by Submission.org, using both manual as well as two different computer counting programs, has confirmed Dr. Rashad Khalifa's counts of all the Quranic initials except for a few counts in the initials "A" (Alef) and "L" (Laam). However, the recent recount of Quranic initials remains divisible by 19 and is a part of the Mathematical Miracle of the Quran. The latest details of the recounts can be reviewed and verified using Quran Inspector. Research on the "A"(alef) and "L" (Lam) counts is ongoing. This article represents the research that these new recounts are based on. This is by no means the end of the research but rather the continuation of it, as more sophisticated tools become available to us. So far, there has been no proof of any count that is different from what we presented here in this article in May 2002. God willing, this recount will be updated if different and correct findings are confirmed." cited from the link. 2002, and in May 2002 I was 4 years old, and no, these articles or websites are not my personal ones! And sorry for my mistake: To say that the majority of the article is original research is wrong. Rilum (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(contrib) 20:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can an admin tell us how this compares to the previously deleted version? --JBL (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Even though this topic is a fringe theory, it has a chance at passing the notability threshold if written properly. The problem at the moment is that Rilum has no idea what wikipedia articles should look like and the current version is totally unacceptable in article space. In summary, something must be done. In draft space, maybe someone will be willing to help Rilum to write it properly. If draftification is not chosen, second best is deletion plus redirect to Rashad Khalifa. The description at Rashad Khalifa can be smartened up a little without making it much longer. It should include the fact that Khalifa used the 19s to declare himself a Messenger of God. Zero^talk 01:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Rilum has no idea what wikipedia articles should look like and the current version is totally unacceptable in article space." To say that even if the "controversial stuff" was deleted and looking at the current state of the article, is not justified, and also an offensive expression. Rilum (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Honestly speaking, I never knew this "theory" despite being a Muslim lol. A number of books discuss this as I'm able to see over the Google books, whatever it is fringe or whatever, I don't care, but these much discussions warrant that it passes the GNG criteria. However the article requires a mighty cleanup and AfD has nothing to do with cleanup. Just place some maintenance templates like "cleanup-rewrite" and that's it.─ The Aafī ^(talk) 02:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Templates like that usually stick around for years with nobody doing anything, though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with this but I've cleaned up a few articles that I could only because they related to my field of interest. Such templates are helpful as well. I do not see any problem except the need of "mighty cleanup". I've exams at the university otherwise I'd have given it a try.─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 02:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole article is rubbish, because it is composed by WP:OR. --91.20.5.186 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn’t. It’s an account of a theory that has been around for a long time. There us nothing original about the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[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.