Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King 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 keep. Ifnord 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King levitation

At Ellusionist.com you have to BUY this. You have to PAY money to know the secret. Its terrible that people can search this site for the secret, while others pay their hard earned money. CrazedNakedFooll 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep It may not be that encyclopedic but I think it can be improved to be of encyclopedic quality. The nominee's reason is invalid, though. --M@thwiz2020 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. For those who are interested, there is a very extensive discussion of the pros and cons of publishing the "secrets" to magic tricks at Talk:Out of This World (card trick). This is a minor twist on the so-called Balducci levitation, and might be comfortably merged there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would not call this a "minor twist" on the Balducci. I can understand how a layperson comparing the two methods in a few minutes might be led to that conclusion. But consider creating your own levitation illusion from scratch. It took Corey King more than a year to develop this "minor twist."Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Reason invalid. But, if you come up with a better reason, I'll change my vote.--Muchosucko 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete or merge two sentences to Balducci levitation, advertisement for commercial website. Google search shows this is real, but I question its notability (separate from the intellectual-property issue). Frankly, if I paid a dollar (let alone $19.95 or more as the website offers) and someone taught me this supposed "magic trick", I'd ask for my money back and contact the Federal Trade Commission. Barno 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Generally only magicians think that this trick is worth paying that much for. This is partly why magic tricks are SOLD. Magicians normally feel that only people who respect magic as an art form should know magic secrets. People who do respect magic will pay for an effect, where as a layperson won't, thereby restricting the secret to someone who truly has use for it.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Muchosucko. Royboycrashfan 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has been done to death. Kuru 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Redirect back to where it was pointing before. It's obviously NOT a secret, or it wouldn't be so widely published. Peyna 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So should be publish all magic secrets, just because people can't keep their mouths should and share the secrets? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs).

WP should publish everything that is verifiable and encyclopedic. Peyna 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not verifiable without buying the product. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Many of the magic articles here on WP (including this one) seem to be used for the explicit purpose of exposing the secret of an effect. Exposing magic secrets is not encyclopedic. However, I believe that if the articles can be improved to reflect all aspects of the effect (author, effect, comparison, history, and method), it may justify keeping them.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Ardenn 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak weak Delete I have to think that somehow this could come back to haunt us. Despite how basic the trick seems, it was some magicans hard work/"trade secret", and we're basically stealing it by posting it here. Mike _{(T C)} 04:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to reiterate; something cannot be a "trade secret" if it is not a secret. This is not a secret, because it has been published. Peyna 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless. --Aaron 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete- I don't care about the fact that money is being charged for this, I just don't feel that it's worth an article. Reyk 06:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's delete-worthy but not with that rationale. Try again. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• If you think it should be deleted, vote delete. Other rationale has been presented by other contributors, and there is no reason to let a bad article survive due to a technicality. Reyk 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, second choice: merge as Balducci variation if kept, just because someone puts it up on the net doesn't mean it was legal to do so. Maybe it's not a "trade secret", but it's certainly someone's interlectual property. In Dutch, this would be called "inkomstenderving", an action that prevents someone from getting paid for their product which, as far as I know, is illegal. Besides, it's not as widely known as the Balducci levitation, the cups and balls or the floating lady. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

IP rights are granted by the government in the forms of trade secret, patent and copyright (in the US, where Wikipedia is located and where ellusionist.com is located. Trade secret protection doesn't fly here, because it's not a secret. It hasn't been patented, so there's no rights there, and copyright only applies to a particular expression of an idea, which is not the case here. Wikipedia is under no threat of legal action for posting this page. Peyna 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as long as the secret is revealed, as it currently is, then it's worth keeping, and followed the "all information wants to be free" motto. Some people keep reverting it to try to hide the information and that shouldn't be allowed. Remember if we delete it we do these people a service since the secret will be lost. Elfguy 14:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand this reasoning. You're saying that this article only has value if the secret of the effect is revealed. This would suggest that nothing else related to the effect is important. Not the person who created the effect; not the facts of its development and history; not the place it is sold or the people who use it; and certainly nothing about how it fits into the history of magic levitations. Even if the page had all of that, if it didn't include the method it would be worthless? Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• keep. Good short article in the vein of our other magic articles. Knowing a secret is not hard work. Brighterorange 15:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong (�?喜�?�财) 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as scoring only 98 unique googles, but BJAODN the nomination :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The secrets of stage magicians, like the secrets of secret societies, are not anything Wikipedia should be censored to respect. Smerdis of Tlön 16:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Writing this article without respect for magicians makes the article biased (against magicians) and should not be allowed. I don't see any reason magic secrets should not be included on Wikipedia. However, I think there is a right way to give away secrets (with detailed information on other aspects of the effects), and a wrong way (with a brief introduction half the size of the explained secret).Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored for magicians. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What Agamemnon2 said --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This trick was revealed on one of those "Secrets of Magic" shows on TV at least 3 years ago. I've been freaking kids out with it for years. I've never actually heard it called by this name, but David Blane and others have been doing it for years. I applaud Ellusionist.com's sense of capitalism, charging for a trick that is freely available online. Maybe people paying for it should take the time to do a little more research. Wikipedia isn't in the business of keeping illusionists' secrets, so the article should stay.--Isotope23 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of companies make A LOT of money providing services to information which is freely available. Lexis Nexis and Westlaw have been very succesful at this. While we can't reprint their copyrighted contributions to that material, we certainly can publish all of the government works that are already public domain that they provide for a fee. It's the "other" services they offer that add the value (searching, ease of acces, support, indexing, etc). That said, I'm not sure what value Ellusionist.com adds to their products, other than neat packaging. Peyna 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, the product (variant trick) was there before people posted it to the net, so ellusionist isn't marking free information. The people posting it are ripping off a commericial product. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A ha! But, ideas are not copyrightable. Peyna 23:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note that this effect was not exposed years ago. The illusion Isotope23 referred to is called the Balducci levitation, which has in fact been exposed for much longer than 3 years. I learned the secret when I was a child from a children's television program over a decade ago (really). The King levitation however was developed just in the last few years, and has not be widely used or exposed. Whereas you can say the Balducci has been popularized by magicians like Blaine, you can say nothing of the sort about this levitation, which hasn't been around long enough to be widely publicized to the layperson.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Duly noted... Your latest rewrite makes clear the difference between Balducci and King's variant. Nice rewrite by the way.--Isotope23 21:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• 'keep please this is a important magic trick Yuckfoo 19:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep provided issues of verifiability are adequately resolved. The "money" issue is irrelevant; Amazon.com charges $4.95 for Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, while Project Gutenberg provides it free[1]. Encyclopedia Britannica charges money for information that can be obtained free in many places, notably Wikipedia. The local Blockbuster charges money for videos that can be checked out for free from our public library. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is certainly nothing secretive about this illusion. It's one of many ways to go about creating a levitation effect, and absolutely should included in the wikipedia. Stevemarks 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• All magic effects have an element of secrecy. They are not legally secrets, but they are known only by a limited number of people (mostly magicians). It is not a secret to any of you, simply because you all regularly read Wikipedia articles, and have read this article. Remember though that just because everyone in this community may know the secret to this effect doesn't mean that most people in the world know it. I doubt that even 1% of the population knows how this effect is done.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it seems notable and I agree with Peyna that the legal issue is phoney: want to know may square miles is Italy: buy an atlas for $20, subscribe to Britannica.com for whatever the price.... or...gosh, it's free on Wikipedia, and someone lost some money. Carlossuarez46 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as no valid reason for deletion provided. Stifle 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it can be improved upon, probably.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think I will take the initiative and improve it right know.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The article lacks references, and the trick described is not noteworthy in the least. Kleg 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Remember that just because you don't have a particular interest in the effect doesn't mean no-one else does.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - "you have to pay money to learn this somewhere else". Well then, I guess you'd have to delete almost the entire Wikipedia database, because you have to pay to get the same info from Encyclopedia Britannica. Free information is the whole point of this place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.100.60 (talk • contribs).
• Keep per DrDebug. Turnstep 01:50, 14 February 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.