Deletion of Sciences in the Qur'an

Comment: I don't see anything really encyclopedic, certainly fails  and . As BD2412 points out, it also fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR||WP:V)

Comment: as sad as it will be to see all that work go, it's definitely . Makes me glad I didn't approve the page in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPP)

Comment: as this is clear . It's not the only problem but sufficient for removal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: WP:OR and . Deomonstrates a complete misunderstanding of concepts like "quantum biology"; scientifically nonsensical statements like "Trifact of life are; water, chemicals and energy"; selective interpretation like "three barriers that protect the fetus" identifying three anatomical barriers, but neglecting to mention several others that make it add up to a larger number. Also rife with links to disambiguation pages, so much so that if this were not deleted, I would move it to draft space until those were repaired
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as unambiguous |original research. I don't see the benefit in redirecting or any content worth salvaging. Unfortunately the creator seems to have just fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Most of the references refer to the scientific concepts involved, not the article's claims, quite clearly . It reads like an internet argument, or essay, overtly promotional and possibly in violation of . I agree that it is more like an |essay than encyclopedic content.  &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NPOV||WP:FORUM)

Comment: unsalvageable essay, pure OR and synthesis against policy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)