Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twister (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 merge to Stage illusions. The keep arguments fail to provide any policy-based reasons for keeping. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Twister (magic trick)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Absolutely no evidence of notability. (Ineligible for PROD, as one was declined in 2006, so bringing it here.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not sure if I'd call the source used in the article as reliable. I did find this - video - in magicpedia - head twister. The "twister" seems to be a variation on this - and I was able to find this Youtube video - - which seems to match the description in the current Wikipedia article. On Magicepedia - twister is described as a combination of the "head twister" and "The Girl Without A Middle" ... After all this - my basic conclusion is that this doesn't pass GNG and that this is a WP:NOTCATALOG fail - we shouldn't be listing every single possible "magical" illusion - there are endless variations of these.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Stage illusions. Vorbee (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge I gave a reasonable shot at trying to find better references, to much the same conclusion came to. It's a shame because I had this watchlisted, but I feel Stage illusions is the proper home for this. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ )  talk  21:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a popular state magic trick and deserves at least a mention. Czolgolz (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You could have merge it as suggests.  On another note supporting to merge. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually have not suggested a merge, I !voted delete. In regards to the proposed merge to Stage illusions - it doesn't make sense - as that article is just a list of notable illusions with no text and this illusion is listed there (and the list criteria there seems to be wiki notable illusions). In present form, the article is a borderline WP:V fail (though it seems possible to verify this type of illusion was performed) - and definitely does not demonstrate that GNG is met for this particular trick (and I would add that twister is quite possibly used for other magic tricks that "twist").Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad, I thought said you voted merge. But as it stands the article doesn't have notability. - - Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 15:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a famous magic trick.GentlemanY (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason for !voting keep. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 13:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? That's a perfect reason. Czolgolz (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fame in Wikipedia is established strictly per sources. If a magic trick fells a tree in the forest and no reliable source writes about it, the trick does not exist for Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Even just among !votes citing policy there is a fairly split viewpoint, especially regarding merge/delete. Please remember to back explanations with clear policy

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Stage illusions per other comments. It would work well on that page. It is famous but without references an article cannot stand. AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But there is a reference. Czolgolz (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: I have added a history of the illusion with references and a link to one of the many hundreds of youtube performances of this illusion. Czolgolz (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete : Not a notable magic trick per sources, so there is no reason to have an article about it. The fact that it's very poorly written does not affect this assessment but possibly shows lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's guidelines on article creation. For article-worthy magic tricks, see List of magic tricks. (As to YouTube as a reference, see WP:YT, which says that links [to YouTube] should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis and should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per Icewhiz. Since there's no notability guideline for this specific topic, it would have to meet WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I haven't managed to find enough coverage in reliable sources to meet this guideline and warrant a stand-alone article. However, I see no reason why the content shouldn't be merged with Stage illusions or at least redirected.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:28, 27 July 2018 (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.