` : Hi Arsath, well you're absolutely correct that it's not the admin's job just to delete articles that have been up on AfD for a given amount of time. Rather, as I have said above, the job of the admin is to determine whether a consensus exists to keep or delete. As I say, there was a solid consensus for deletion. When an article has changed in such a way that the voting patterns are different toward the end of the AfD, then an admin should take this into account. However, the votes really didn't change: the consensus remained for deletion throughout the AfD. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that you cited only primary sources, rather than secondary sources, and thus the article appeared to be an example of original research. It's just fine to cite the Quran, the Bible, or the Torah as primary sources, but unless you can cite secondary sources that support your characterization of those primary sources, then your additions will be (or appear to be) original research, i.e. a ``novel narrative or historical interpretation``. You need to find secondary sources to which you can attribute your claims about the importance of math in the Quran. Once you've done that, you can recreate the article and it will be more likely to survive AfD! If you're still not sure what I'm talking about, have a look at Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Primary sources, and Secondary sources. Cheers,  `