Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Quran code (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:55, 9 June 2021 editJayBeeEll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers28,201 edits →Quran code← Previous edit Revision as of 20:21, 9 June 2021 edit undoEggishorn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,280 edits re:ORNext edit →
Line 14: Line 14:
* '''Weak keep''': I agree with Mccapra. The topic should easily pass ]. 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. ] (]) 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC) <!--VCB Mosesheron--> * '''Weak keep''': I agree with Mccapra. The topic should easily pass ]. 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. ] (]) 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC) <!--VCB Mosesheron-->
*'''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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC) *'''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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
::{{tq|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 Misplaced Pages 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." ] ] ] 20:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' can an admin tell us how this compares to the previously deleted version? --] (]) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC) *'''Comment''' can an admin tell us how this compares to the previously deleted version? --] (]) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:21, 9 June 2021

Quran code

AfDs for this article:

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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) (contrib) 20:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Categories: