Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Topic, from what I'm guessing, appears to be some sort of numerology within the Koran. There are four total references, one of which is a translation and three are actually different ways of accessing the same self-published book. Google books turns up 3 results for "Abdullah Jalghoom", none really useful. A google search also turns up little of use - wikipedia first, followed by Facebook, then a bunch of personal web pages. The external links appear to be first a blog, followed by the raw data in the from of google documents. I would venture that this page does not pass our criteria for notability, and is problematic for original research, promotion and indiscriminate information reasons. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - due to the fact that this is all unverifiable OR. Wer900  talkessay on the definition of consensus 21:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not delete I think it is a clear mistake to say that the three other sources are the same as the arabic book (the first reference). The other references are links related to research by Halis Aydemir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.88.119.175 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe belief without significant coverage makes it non-notable / very deletable. QU TalkQu 20:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The bulk of the sourcing is self-published, and the remainder is from an obscure religious publisher. There are also fundamental NPOV problems, one could cite sources like this that present an opposite viewpoint than the one represented in the article.  I don't think either side has reliable sources to present their ideas, I don't think there are enough reliable sources to correct the problems others have mentioned in this AFD. Polyquest (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete. Extremely poor quality numerology from poor sources and no redeeming features. Makes claims which are mathematical nonsense. Zerotalk 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. Neccessary changes have been made to the article to keep it neutral and unreliable sources have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.143.244.33 (talk • contribs) 08:50, April 9, 2012‎
 * It is shorter, but not much better. There is still no indication that these trivial calculations are notable.  What is the evidence that the University of Michigan published the book (I don't see it in the link provided)? Zerotalk 14:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If you scroll down the link ‘The Secrets of the Order of the Quran: A Contemporary Reading’ you will find that University of Michigan has published it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.105.85.117 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it says that the copy scanned by Google was from University of Michigan, not that they published it. The publisher is stated. Zerotalk 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The author of that book is Abdullah Jalghoom. Non-notable researcher with non-notable research. It has not been considered notible enough for anyone to write a citable alternative POV. The blog post linked to by Polyquest above seems to be the only attention non-advocates have given it, and shows it would be easy for citable critics to give another POV had they considered it notable. As there are no citable critics, the page simply serves as promoting fringe religious numerology. There are many, many such examples of Qur'anic numerology claims which do not have wikipedia pages. Gamma737 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.