Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran code (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The redirect suggested by User:Timtempleton seems plausible, but without any discussion of it, I'm not going to include it in the consensus. No problem with somebody else creating the redirect on their own, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Quran code
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic isn't notable enough for its own article; it already has a blurb at United Submitters International, which is plenty. Practically all the sources are from Rashad himself. Of the two or so that aren't, one is just a random webpage critiquing his ideas, and the other is a dead link. Moreover, this is WP:FRINGE numerology, and the article doesn't treat it as such. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with United Submitters International, it may become notable (aGain) kn the future, but deleting it wouldn't be good either. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Any content worth merging is already there. The rest is far-too-intricate detail that simply serves to push the idea's validity.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Deleting a topic such as this, which has had a huge impact on the lives of so many Muslims, to the point that many dissented from the traditional mainstream sects and joined Quranist or the Submitter denomination, is grossly unfair. The 19 code is a significant finding, and its topic is so vast with the number of finding linked to this code being discovered all the time. I’d like to question the true motive behind anyone who would wish to delete such a topic altogether. On the contrary I think this article needs to be expanded further so all are aware of the number of coincidences involving this numerical code which hasn’t been researched enough. A set of references to the each finding should be included too. (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2017 (GMT)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyJawed (talk • contribs)


 * (Note, the above comment was made by the article's original creator). You say it had a huge impact on the lives of so many, but there's nothing in the article to back that up.  Nor are there any references with which one could verify that either.  You also say the 19 code is a significant finding, but it's not really a finding.  It's just a bit of apparently non-notable numerology.  On a side note, your questioning of my motive isn't appropriate.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing useful I found in that article. Most of the text is self-published or original research. Many sources are primary which puts this article's notability under serious trouble. Best, it could be redirected with little useful information merged.  Greenbörg  (talk)  17:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to fail WP:NFRINGE. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United Submitters International. There's not enough to suggest that this is anything but fringe teachings. I can't even find any discussion of this in mainstream media. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  05:22, 22 July 2017 (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.