Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card warp (2nd nomination)

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Card warp (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)

Previous AfD three years ago was closed as no consensus as there were no participants after two relists.

This doesn't appear to be a particularly notable card trick - I couldn't find references to it in any of the usual sources, and I can't locate the sources mentioned in the article to verify their contents or reliability.

Original rationale was similar and I agree with it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is outrageous to nominate an article because you personally are unable access the sources. Nor is it necessary that material exists online. We assume good faith for offline sources unless there is reason not to as a matter of policy. If you are implying that the sources don't actually exist, then that is incorrect. They can all be shown to exist with online evidence and in most cases are held by libraries;

• The Michael Close source is on gbooks, and also OCLC World Cat which lists library holdings
• The Michal Ammar source at World Cat
• The Schwarzman source is listed at the Conjuring Archive along with dozens of other sources that discuss this trick under various names
• The Eugene Burger source at World Cat

go read the sources first before claiming lack of notability. SpinningSpark 19:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just wondering - is a card trick notable because it's on a few videos? Are these sources WP:PRIMARY? And if this is kept, the sources need to be added to the article. SportingFlyer talk 07:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you responding to me? All those sources are already in the article. They are just formatted as prose rather than the usual reflist. Only half the sources are videos, and videos are just as acceptable as printed sources, subject to the same RS guidelines. SpinningSpark 17:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SpinningSpark: Partially to you, partially posing a question - I'm not trying to disqualify videos as a legitimate source, but rather noting it's difficult to determine whether it's a primary or secondary source: I think the question is, is this someone showing you how to do their trick, or is this someone showing you how to do a trick? SportingFlyer talk 22:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that. It's hard to tell, but it appears the Michael Close video is self-published - at least the corresponding book is. [1] is by L&L Publishing. I can't find "Apocalypse Volume 3 Number 7". SportingFlyer talk 23:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you mean Michael Ammar, not Michael Close – at least that's where your link goes. Surely he can be counted as an established expert in the field per WP:RS/SPS. SpinningSpark 23:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC

• I'm not sure why you are suggesting L&L Publishing is a self-publishing house. There is no sign on their website that they take money to publish. SpinningSpark 00:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I'm not suggesting it's self-published, I'm trying to find where the videos were sourced from since there are no inline references. SportingFlyer talk 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• same place SpinningSpark 00:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This was originally in reply to Sportingflyer's second comment but I moved it out rather than bork the whole order of things. Spinningspark, I apologize for phrasing my original argument inarticulately - I (unfairly) assumed the reference to the original AfD would suggest I felt the same and wouldn't need to make the same argument again. I should have copy-pasted it if I wanted to do that.

That being said, I think the question of primary vs. secondary is the real issue with this article (and, come to think of it, other magic trick articles in general, even the couple I've worked on). Those videos, and even the linked books, are commercial how-to guides. They exist for the purpose of teaching people to do these tricks, not for the purpose of evaluating the tricks critically or commenting on the history of them. To me, that places them more towards being primary than secondary sources, which would mean they are much less indicative of notability. In contrast, something like Jim Steinmeyer's Hiding The Elephant would be a secondary source, because its function is to discuss the history of a particular trick, not to teach someone how to do that trick.

It looks like WikiProject Magic is dead, which is a shame, because there's no SNG here and I think it might be helpful to have one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was only one magician involved, then sure. But the Conjuring Archive is enough to convince me that numerous magicians have used this trick or created versions of it. That gives it some kind of notability to my mind. SpinningSpark 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears in sources such as Magic: A Reference Guide and so is notable. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, google is showing standard fair. Merge would be reasonable if there was a target. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2018 (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.