Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevator levitation


 * 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 SPEEDY KEEP. Johntex\talk 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Elevator levitation

 * See also the related discussion archived at Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/January 2006.

Anonymous editor alleges this information is a trade secret and has been trying to delete this, but without understanding our processes. The anonymous editor has violated 3RR in their attempts to delete. I am simply helping them bring the issue to the proper place - no vote from nominator Johntex\talk 02:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarification: The article is not a copyright violation nor a patent violation. Trade secret laws would only apply if the person who wrote the article was under some sort of non-disclosure agreement. In summary, as near as any of us can tell the article violates no laws, and therefore this AfD should only discuss the merits of the article itself, not its legal status. I am also not voting, but I wanted to clarify this point. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 02:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Based on what you say, as it is a trade secret, it is highly unlikely to vertify this, and unvertifiable articles is still grounds for deletion.SYSS Mouse 03:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong, possibly speedy, keep. The arguments given for deletion are nonsense, and I think it's encyclopedic enough. N (t/c) 02:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is no logical reason to delete this article. However, cleanup is also needed. SycthosTalk 03:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per clarification. No copyright, patent & trade secret not relevent or proved. Kuru 03:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The same specious arguments have been made, and the same vandalisms done, on a variety of magic-trick articles.  A general RFC (conducted at Talk:Out of This World (card trick)) came to the same conclusions Lanoitarus states above.  This particular IP is clearly a reincarnation of one of the team of magic vandals, given his immediate knowledge of our copyvio procedures. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMHO, whether the content is part of trade secret should not a factor in deciding whether the artice is suitable AS LONG AS it is verifiable.  A simple Google search shows about 190 unique entries - including some with detail description on how the trick is performed, which suggest that this magic trick is well known and could be verified.  As User:Finlay McWalter kindly pointed out, Talk:Out of This World (card trick) already established precedents on magic tricks.  --Hurricane111 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article appears to be justified in context of magical illusions.   (aeropagitica)   21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Claiming that alleged "copyright" on a trick means others cannot discuss it is a common trick by magicians hopin to keep their routines secret. It, however, has absolutely no basis in law and depends upon them tricking people who don't know better into erasing perfectly legitimate discussions and information. Copyright covers text, images, music, computer code, etc. but not magic tricks or other procedures. Procedures need a patent. Claiming "trade secret" is just using words that relate to patents without evidence of patents. Patents (assuming one would even be granted for something like this, which is highly doubtful) only prevent one from using the procedure oneself in business. By all intellectual property laws anyone and everyone can discuss how any magic tricks are done. Same thing happened on other websites (like the Straight Dope messageboard) with false threats but are ignored once any legal checking is done. Plumbers, for example, might wish to keep everyone in the dark about how to repair plumbing to protect their financial success, but they have no legal right to demand secrecy, same thing with stage magicians. DreamGuy 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - oppose magical censorship whenever and wherever it crops up. Cyde Weys votetalk 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as no valid reason for deletion. Stifle 00:01, 17 January 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.