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 speedy keep. The last AfD was six weeks ago. If people think that a merge is appropriate that can be done through a merge discussion. If the feeling is that the outcome of the last AfD was incorrect, then WP:DRV is the correct place to challenge that. But as our consensus poplicy notes, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive and as such I am speedily closing this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 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)

Relevance? User:Rilum originally created this article on the German Wikipedia (de:Korancode), saw it deleted there multiple times and now creates it on various Wikipedias. To show this article deserves it? On the Dutch (and French) Wikipedia it was created in the user namespace and then move to the main space, on the English Wikipedia this article was imported from the German Wikipedia. I think it might be wise to discuss if this article is allowed on Wikipedia. Trijnstel_talk 10:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)use[reply]

Note that I missed the 3rd nomination, but also note that the deletion of the German version and the attempts of Rilum to have this article on multiple wikis weren't mentioned. Trijnstel_talk 10:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:SIGCOV, see 3rd nomination discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quran_code_(3rd_nomination). The result was keep. It is allowed to use some other languages wikis too. --Rilum (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep it is only a couple of weeks since we reached consensus to keep this. Mccapra (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Rashad Khalifa, the originator of the theory. I do not agree with the claims of significant coverage as a lot of these sources are self-published or otherwise don't meet RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Thank you Mccapra. Saying that a lot of the sources are self-published or otherwise don't meet RS is wrong. It gives the impression that the entire citations have not been looked at or examined in full by the previous speaker. --Rilum (talk)
• Merge to Rashad Khalifa. There's some coverage, but it isn't significant due to the nature of so many of the sources either returning to the theorist or being self-published. This article has been deleted on multiple language Wikis, and has been nominated for deletion by multiple different users here on English Wikipedia, for a reason. It's fair to say that the article looks like a creation to use Wikipedia for gaining attention for a fringe theory. It's certainly a significant part of Khalifa's biography, but there isn't sufficient evidence for its significance outside of that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Besides the two books by Rashad Khalifa and the articles by Martin Gardner, there also seem to be three books on the code cited in https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.968.5885&rep=rep1&type=pdf - this article doesn't mention Rashad Khalifa. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chalst :) --Rilum (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's an unconvincing write-up of a dubious concept and most of the sources that exist for it highlight the topsy-turvy lingo we have where WP:V calls them reliable, however, the concept is sufficiently visible, the sourcing goes beyond what is appropriate for a section of the Rashad Khalifa article and the Martin Gardner articles show that it is possible to write both well and objectively about the topic and the text analysis article I gave is also usable. I'd nominate Trijnstel for WP:TROUT except this is her first AfD nom in 8 years: even with a no consensus result at AfD, one should normally wait at least six weeks before nominating unless there is an exceptional WP:TNT rationale: so soon after a keep close with no new information, the right thing to do is to challenge the close on WP:DRV. I found Barkeep49's close uncharacteristically weak: Eggishorn made a strong OR case that was not refuted, and the nom Hemiauchenia's case that the sourcing was too weak to justify recreation was not really disputed; no consensus or relisting would have been better options. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chalst sometimes there's something to say, sometimes there's not. That one the consensus of the participants seemed clear so no closing statement felt necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 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.