Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misled (magic trick)

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 delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misled (magic trick)

based on WP:NOT#HOWTO Renrenren 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Propaniac 15:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article describes a commercial magic trick which uses a device, and explains how the device works. That seems no more of a how-to than explaining how a transistor works. If the seller of the trick has a copyright, the article could be copyright infringement, even if it does not quote verbatim from the product literature. Edison 16:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I see this no different that having this other AFD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criss_Angel%27s_Levitation which will probably not survive after AFD.
Keep User:Edison's copyright concerns do not apply: copyright does not cover methods, only descriptions of those methods. Trick is a notable trick performed by numerous stage magicians, including on TV by notable performers like David Copperfield. Sourcing the method isn't difficult, as there is a booklet & video with instructions on how to perform it.[1] JulesH 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding concerns of WP:NOT#HOWTO, I don't think this is a real concern here. The purpose of the article is not so much providing instructions on how to perform the trick (which would actually need to be much more in depth than the article is) but instead to explain to people who might have seen it how it was done. The latter is an encyclopedic topic, I feel. JulesH 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article makes zero assertion and offers no evidence whatsoever that this trick is notable. (It should probably be speedy-deleted for that reason.) Propaniac 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that the article doesn't make such an assertion. I, however, just did. JulesH 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And have added that assertion to the article. JulesH 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but the fact that this is a commercial available product means to me that it shouldn't be on here. The value of an item in a magic shop is based on its secret. By giving away the secret here, Mr Wenk's ability to make profit from this trick is hindered. --Renrenren 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NOT#CENSORED. This is not a good reason to avoid discussing the subject. JulesH 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is still non-notable, and if it's going to tell how to do the trick by showing a picture of the device and explaining what it does and what it looks like, then it's a how-to, even without a blatant title as such. MSJapan 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of JulesH reasoning. and " performed by a number of well-known stage magicians". Sources for this are of course needed.
Delete - No notability established for this magic trick Corpx 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH. Needs cleanup, though. AndyJones 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, I fail to see the notability of the product. I don't really think that the fact that David Copperfield did it makes it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Granted that it is not notable, I fail to see how the details of how the illusion is performed can be considered encyclopedic content. As far as it being a how-to goes, it seems to be a summary of how to use the product, and although the reader would probably need to actually own the product to do the illusion, I don't see how it's of any value to anyone else when not used as a hoe-to (making it doubly useless). Calgary 03:26, 23 July 2007 (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.