Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math of 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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Math of Quran

Only one source quoted, lots of figures with no source. Unless sources are provided and article is rewritten it seems too much original research.Delete TheRingess 07:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. --Terence Ong 08:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge to United Submitters International#The number 19 Schizombie 08:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• The "source" is just an edition of the Quran itself. This is original research. Delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• The article is a new article, I havent had the time to add more references, I need some time to add quality references to this article,please Do not delete (202.69.193.66 10:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note I suspect this anon is the same as User:Arsath, who calls himself Mystic. If you look at the anon contribs, the anon has multiply edited User:Arsath, Zahira College Colombo, which has also been heavily edited by Arsath himself.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • NoteHello Blnguyen, what do you mean by you suspect.. Can you prove it.. (Mystic 03:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
• Keep and expand. The potential for adding new information into this article is there. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR or a POV attempt to claim scientific supremacy for a given religion - the numbers could be used to prove some other completely wrong ratios also.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article isn't even nn, it's just pointless. I could count words in anything and probably come up with a mathematical pattern. In fact, without context, it comes awfully close to nonsense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjc8 (talk • contribs)
• Do Not Delete Just because some of us do not believe in something that doesn't mean its wrong.. There are people who say Armstrong did not land on the moon does that mean he didn't?. Lets give this article a chance for sometime and see whether it improves.. And if you are voting for something please put your signature. otherwise I will remove it!! I mean it. Because same person can go on putting several delete votes(Mystic 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Note:Author of the article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I reinstated the above comment with the unsigned template. Mystic, you are not allowed to throw out other's votes - it is up to the presiding admin to do that if there is an allegation of fraud.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if numbers are correct (365 occurences of day etc) then that tells us something about the intentional writing of the Quran. Work needs quality references and expansion. Oh and Arsath aka Mystic please notify your bias if you are the creator/major contributor of the work - else all of your pleas to keep will be worthless (that includes if you are also 202.69.193.66). VirtualSteve 06:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is nonsense.Zaheer89 07:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V, WP:NOR. Note that if it is somehow kept, it should be moved to Mathematics of the Quran. Proto||type 12:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It isn't so much mathematics of the quran, but mathematics of the quran according to a small sect of islam, the United Submitters International, a break-off sect of Qur'an alone#Dissident Submitters and some individuals who agree with it. The majority of muslims and non-muslims don't see what they see because of inconsistent counts, etc. There might be some counts of nineteen that are accurate, but to most they are not significant. Schizombie 18:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• • CommentIf you guys are so determined to delete this article please go ahead..I don't care.. The IP edit 202.69.193.66 is my friends and we use the same internet connection as we work in the same office. Our effort was not to promote anything but to share our knowledege on the subject matter. As we have come to understand that there are too many opinionated Admins and users. I cant be bothered to fight all these people to share my knowledge. (Mystic 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
    • If you want it to stay, you should work on it. The second section doesn't follow from the first. What does a count of 24 occurrences of the word Rejul/Man have to do with 19? Why is it significant (should we count how many times "man" is used in every book?). Also, were the arabic words counted, or were the english words counted? A translation might use the word man for more words than just rejul, and might sometimes translate rejul as something other than man. Additionally, the translations sometimes add words that aren't in the arabic because they are somehow implied by the other words, which they'll put in (parenthesis). Schizombie 22:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Point taken (Mystic 10:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment If we decide to keep the article, does anyone know of a verifiable source for the numbers? TheRingess 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hey The Ringess why dont you read the quran and verify for your self.. (Mystic 10:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC))
    • Reply Perhaps I could have phrased my question better, because either I'm projecting or you seem to have taken my comment in the wrong way. Unfortunately, I cannot verify for myself. I do not speak Arabic. As far as English translations go I have only read bits and pieces. A quote comes to mind: The heart of the believer is the highest heaven. I cannot remember whether that's from the quran or one of the poems of Hafiz or Rumi. I have read several volumes of English translations of Hafiz and several dozen by Rumi. I find both men's stories fascinating and love the poetry. That is neither here nor there though. TheRingess 12:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Weak delete as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Stifle 00:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification. I feel that most if not all of the references are to primary sources, such as the Koran/Quran, and as such it appears to violate WP:NOR. However, I have revised to a weak delete after some consideration. Stifle 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not opposed to a merge or slight merge either. Stifle 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot Stifle for your positive attitude..
• Delete - Absolute junk. - Hahnchen 13:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• My Dear Friends can we clean this up please.. I guarantee you all that this article will grow fast with more resourceful references. Have we finished voting? (or does it go on forever? Can you please tell me I am new to wikipedia) my opinion is some of the earlier votes cannot be counted. Because as you can see the article has changed quiet significantly (or completely) since it was voted for deletion. I accept the fact that initially the article did not have any references or proper structure. But now it has changed. So all of you who voted before 26th feb 2006 can you kindly reconsider your votes. (Mystic 03:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
  • All the above counts, people don't have to change them unless they feel changes to the page warrant it. It isn't over until an admin closes it. I think if the page remains it should be renamed. I deleted a disinguous quote that was added suggesting Martin Gardner was impressed by the claims, which was decidedly untrue; see my talk page for more. Schizombie 03:52, 1 March 2006 (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.