Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card Location


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  Sango  123   03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Card Location
Description of "magic trick" allegedly invented by the author of the article. It's earned $500. I'd say "not notable". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-encyclopedic, OR, nn Adambiswanger1 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. No sources cited; the details of the trick have apparently not been published before. (It's irrelevant to the deletion discussion, but this trick doesn't seem terribly good; I don't know that I've ever seen a card trick in which the magician did not shuffle the cards and then allow a subject to cut them. And in the process of counting down to the specified location, the subject is likely to notice that the order of the card is far from random&mdash;even if other features are not noticed, the fact that each group of four cards is in sequential order is pretty noticeable). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. More power to him if he can earn money off it, but it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Ted 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. How has this chap made money from this trick when the revelation of how it's done is there for all to see for free? This is essentially non-encyclopedic but good luck to him anyway.   (aeropagitica)    (talk)   05:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this please. Scented Guano 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. There's nothing wrong with stacked decks, but this isn't an existing one, at least not verifiable from reputable magic sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Delete shouldn't have even got here, should have just been prodded --Xorkl000 12:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR. Invitatious 14:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research --mtz206 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOR, also sounds too simple to be a notable card trick. J I P  | Talk 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete i like magic tricks, but this looks like OR. also, magicians never reveal their secrets, so this person is a bad magician =]. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Snugspout 02:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research through and through.--Auger Martel 17:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for two reasons.
 * 1) This is true. A mathematical formula, originated in personal research or not, is and stays true. And every card trick is mathematical (or just suggestion). See also WP:RDMisc about it
 * 2) This is fun. My only regret is that ... the article is unreadable! Wikify it and you'll love it. --DLL 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy is verifiability, not truth. And there is nothing anywhere that suggests that articles that are "fun" ought to have different standards applied to them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR. LotLE × talk  06:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up while sitting in your car one day. Also seems to be vanity. Ace of Sevens 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.