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 keep - Merge proposal ignored as it's an AFD (Articles for deletion) so any Merges should be discussed on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The verse of evil eye[edit]

The verse of evil eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, WP:V and possibly WP:RS. I've tried to search the following terms on Google: "verse of evil eye", "verse of the evil eye", "ayah of evil eye", "ayah of the evil eye", "ayat of evil eye", "ayat of the evil eye" and even in Indonesian (language of the largest Muslim population) "ayat mata jahat", "ayah mata jahat". Disregarding Wikipedia-sourced websites, none of them gave ANY hit, except 1 doubtful and minor mention for "ayah of the evil eye". The Arabic term given in the article in no way means Verse of the evil eye, but more like Verse "And indeed, those", originating from the first few words of verse 68:52. This may be further evidence that we are dealing with OR or maybe even a hoax. The present sources are either references to the Qur'an or seem to merely support the evil eye in general rather than a verse. HyperGaruda (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The fact that the grammatically correct "verse of the evil eye" appears nowhere on the whole web is a tell-tale sign that this is either made up or some fringe interpretation of the verse in question. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The name of article was selected according to concept of the verse. The verse refers to a kind of psychological effects. Therefore, this name is not translation of verse but also is concept and deep meaning of the verse. Also, please see 1, 2, 3, and 4. Saff V. (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @MatthewVanitas: Please say your idea about the article.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The above mentioned sources by the editor are WP:RS which is why WP:N is met by the article.JugniSQ (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to be good evidence of sources which describe this verse as being the one about the evil eye. Of course, not everyone refers to it in that way, given that it is a general term for the translation of a phrase in another language. I'm struggling to see how else one could summarise this verse and what it is about. JMWt (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I've been googling around and found some bits and pieces indicating that verses 68:51-52 are indeed sometimes used to ward off the evil eye. The most reliable source implying this, is a mention in the Encyclopaedia Iranica: The image of ʿAlī and Ḏu’l-Faqār was popular on amulets accompanied by the koranic verses used against the evil eye (68:51-52; Donaldson, pp. 130-31, 240).

HOWEVER, there is still not a single source that actually gives a name to these two verses. While verse 2:255 is known widely as the Verse of the Throne, I haven't been able to find a similarly widespread name for 68:51-52. Also taking into account that the current article only includes a quote from the Qur'an and some general information about the evil eye, I now think it is better to merge the useful bits of this article into Evil eye#In Islam. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGarudaPlease see four sources that I mentioned above.Saff V. (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V., I don't really understand what you are trying to say with these sources. None of them tell that 68:51-52 is "The verse of evil eye", but only that this verse is evidence for the existence of the evil eye. However, verse 12:67 has also been mentioned as evidence for the existence of the evil eye. Should 12:67 also be named "The verse of evil eye"? Additionally, 68:51-52 is interpreted as disbelievers accusing Muhammad of being a madman, an accusation which is "but a reminder to all the creatures". Perhaps we should use "The verse of the madman" or "The verse of accusing Muhammad" or "The verse of the reminder"? What I'm trying to say is that you cannot just invent names for verses without sources to back up said name. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGarudaI think that you are angry.Saff V. (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no... I'm just trying to uphold Wikipedia's no original research and notability standards. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that's best discussed by whichever wikiproject is looking after these kinds of pages, but you are in effect arguing that this (essentially equivalent) page should rather be part of this one. To me that's a question to debate amongst the people writing the page and not one to be discussed here - the question for us here is about notability, and I think it is pretty clear even within what you've written above that the page title is a reasonable name for the idea. JMWt (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that uncommon for deletion discussions to turn into merger discussions. It is even mentioned in Wikipedia's deletion manual, so there is no reason why deletion discussers should abstain from merger proposals. Besides, anyone has the right to be involved; remember the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

If we're going to draw equivalents, then I would say that the proposed move is more like moving "Spilling wine" to Spilling salt, since spilling wine is used to avert the bad luck associated with spilling salt. And no, the current page title does not conform to Wikipedia's naming conventions (Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject). The only unique statement in the current article, is its anti-evil eye effect; the rest of the article is, I repeat, either a quote from the Qur'an or stuff about the evil eye in general. That tiny bit of unique information does, again, not warrant an entire article of its own. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mhhossein: Please contribute in this discussion.Saff V. (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The merger is not valid here per the very WP:MERGE. As it is mentioned there, "...mergers are generally not proposed from the onset of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions... ." We should let the AFD work and of course the editors may reach consensus to merge it into another article while this is not the case and there's no consensus! Mhhossein (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2015 (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.