Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wild levitation
Delete. The un-attributed title "Wild Levitation" turns out to be a butchered version of Paul Harris' "Sooperman" from 1977 - a known variation of the Balducci levitation. Therefore, the relevant info has been added to Paul Harris name on Balducci levitation, where it belongs. As it has been filed under correct name, originator and with proper source - a page that duplicates it without sources serves no purpose TStone 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Balducci levitation. Pointless repitition of information.   (aeropagitica)   17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Why delete? "wild levitation" yields 9000+ refs on google (some commercial), so it seems valid to me. Just add a link to balducci for now (not even done yet), + maybe 1 or 2 of the google links 212.11.48.247 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Note: There's about 15 derivative versions in USA, 8 i Europe, ? in Asia + many that have appeared and faded away since 70's. One page for each?--TStone 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So please add information about them. This is not a reason to delete this page first. Why did you want to *delete* it at all anyway? From your contributions, it seems you dislike some magicians, and tend to disparage their work; you even said "butchered" above. Be careful about being NPOV and non-discriminatory. 212.11.48.247 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So Wiki is improved by false information? Tracking history in this field is tough as it is. Now the info is under correct title, originator, date & publication. What is improved of having unsourced duplication under false title? That is like nails against blackboard. Yes, I dislike Lorayne and especially Fearson on a personal level, and made extensive edits on them. "Butchered" is a valid descriptive term here. Don't recognize "tend to disparage their work", please explain? I should create 20-30 pages on the same trick?--TStone 20:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per (aeropagitica). -- JLaTondre 01:19, 31 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.