Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exposure (magic)


 * 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 send for cleanup . Consensus agrees that action is required to be taken to improve, reference or/and rewrite the article. - Mailer Diablo 12:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum :In good faith I presume the cleanup and rewrite will occur to address concerns of verifiability, which by right is non-negotiable and overrides consensus. If after a reasonable time the concerns are still not addressed, feel free to nominate it for deletion again citing this message. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Exposure (magic)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources, which means it fails standards of verifiability. Uses weasel words liberally. Looks to be nothing but original research. Chardish 01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite if necessary. The article is not necessarily that great, but the subject itself is quite notable. Haikupoet 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and CleanupConsidering the subject matter, verifiability is probably a bit harder to achieve, although it is ultimately a requirement. Tough one.  I would say, keep the tags, ditch the deletion, and hope that something can be made of the article in terms of sourcing and such.--IRelayer 01:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: All editors should familiarize themselves with the underlying principles of verifiability. Simply because an article may be about a notable topic does not mean it passes verifiability. Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder, insists that unsourced material be "aggressively removed." - Chardish 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced & unverifiable. /Blaxthos 08:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite as necessary. A look around with google gives me the impression this article does have potential, I'm willing to give the editors of the article the chance to improve it. However if I see it coming back around for second AfD though without any improvement I'd be suporting deletion. Mathmo Talk 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic seems worthy, and this text, while not free from problems, is not useless to someone who wants to improve it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reference issue cleaned up The article looks like it might have potential, but the references are unfortunately inadequate and it does look like the article is probably original research by the author(s). If in-line published references are provided to verify most of the information, I'll reconsider.  Otherwise, I'd suggest possibly moving this article to a user space page as a draft article until the references can be properly cleaned up. Dugwiki 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Article needs a rewrite from the ground up with appropriate references and tone, so maybe deletion is warranted. Certainly a notable topic, I hope some editors can "adopt" this article in their userspace and replace with a much better version. --Canley 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, but it needs major work on sources, writing. Realkyhick 09:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and re-write/add sources. --KharBevNor 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep has sources but needs more, just because it hasn't had a lot of people working on it doesn't make it original research. 163.1.188.201 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article has no sources. External links are not sources. - Chardish 18:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up and sources added. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This subject is intrinsically notable (magic is popular and this is a big deal among magicians -- what more could you ask for?), and it makes more sense to improve this article than to delete it and start over. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing is "intrinsically notable." We have objective standards of notability here that must be followed. Furthermore, the problem is that the article is unverified and potentially unverifiable: this is non-negotiable on Wikipedia. - Chardish 21:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the notability criteria; my comment wasn't quite meant to be taken literally (apologies for the imprecision). The point was that common sense tells me it's notable. (I do concede that my idea of common sense might not match anybody else's.) Anyway, I will not doubt that lack of sources is a problem, but I'm wondering what exactly might be unverifiable. I won't deny that a lack of sources is a problem, but I don't think it's one to delete an article over, either. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble with unverified information is that there is no way of confirming its accuracy, which is necessary for Wikipedia to be an accurate and reliable resource. Take the following statement, for example: Opponents argue that exposure devalues magic tricks by removing their potential to surprise or amaze audiences. I have a few questions immediately: 1) Which opponents argued this? 2) What was their actual argument? 3) When did they make the argument? 4) Where can I find out more about this argument? Instead, I'm relying upon an unknown editor on the Internet to summarize the argument and remove any specificity from it. Because I don't know where the editor got the information from, I have no guarantee that he didn't just invent it himself (or perhaps played Devil's advocate in an attempt to explore all possible arguments.) The information, therefore, is completely free of credibility or reliability. Now the bigger problem is that the entire article is like this, which is very good reason to delete it. No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. - Chardish 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But that particular statement is a well-known viewpoint about magic. That doesn't excuse the lack of a source, but it means a source could easily be found. For example, http://www.billpalmer.com/exposure.htm is a potential source (in particular, the section that begins "Let me give you a not entirely hypothetical situation."), if not a particularly great one, but it was one of the very first google hits I found. Anyway, the "Arguments" section as a whole is indeed problematic, though, but I think the section preceding it is decent. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are added — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:35, 7 February 2007 (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.