Deletion of Quran code (4th nomination)

Comment: 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  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 {{u|Trijnstel}} for  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  rationale: so soon after a keep close with no new information, the right thing to do is to challenge the close on . I found {{u|Barkeep49}}'s close uncharacteristically weak: {{u| Eggishorn}} made a strong OR case that was not refuted, and the nom {{u|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. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:TROUT||WP:TNT||WP:DRV)