Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning 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 delete as a blatant advertisement. --Coredesat 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learning magic

This, and a bunch of redirects, were created by User:Matsimons as pretty much a forum advertisement. The original article, MAD Magical Arts Domain (now a redirect) was speedy deleted G12 for copyvio. There's no reliable sources, and the forum itself doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. Not sure if the current article is the same as before, which is why this is going to AfD. ColourBurst 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and also delete the MAD redirect per nom. -- Kicking222 16:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and the several redirects, per above. NawlinWiki 16:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a how to site. Appears to be no value from reading. Chris Kreider 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This "article" doesn't really tell us anything, and could easily be summarized thusly: "Previously it was hard to learn about magic because magicians kept their secrets. Then there were books, but the books were supplanted by videos because they are more modern. Then there were clubs and societies that people could join to learn magic. Then there were web discussion boards and you can visit this one right now. It's your choice." It takes up an awful lot of space to say absolutely nothing at all. The same user has also posted exactly the same text in its own section in Magic (illusion), which also needs to be deleted. There's nothing to learn here.OfficeGirl 07:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep

Matsimons 09:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(The original article, MAD Magical Arts Domain)

That was my first ever article at wikipedia, I was not aware of rules and regulations. So this time I made very sure that I followed every rule, THe article is informative, and does stick to all regulations, and is a very different article to the origanal one that I made, infact it has nothing to do with MAD, it only gives a usefull refernce to it.

(and the forum itself doesn't satisfy WP:WEB.)

Yes it does!

(Not a how to site.)

its exaclty what it is, learning and sharing how to.

Nothing to learn if your not interested in magic and learning magic, the lnik is not a redirect, not in the slightest, the link goes to the header page, that explains what exaclty MAD is, giving people the option to join or not. I followed Wikipedias own policy on supplying an external link if relevant to the article. I would expect others to add more links, to books, magic clubs and so on.

(This "article" doesn't really tell us anything,) It certanly explains to those who have tryed to learn magic before how and why it was so difacult, and then goes on to give them information on how they could now get into the world of magic a lot more easly.

(The same user has also posted exactly the same text in its own section in Magic (illusion))

Becasue its very relevant, and folows a post on magic ethics. maybe the text could be replaced with a link to learning magic, but in context to the rest of the magic illusion article I thought and think others will find it very relevant.

• Comment How does the article satisfy WP:WEB? Which criteria does it satisfy? Where are the reliable sources? ColourBurst 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep How can Chris Kreider say that it is not a "how to" site. Have you actually looked at the site. It is stuffed full of precise instructions on how to perform magic effects. I would also like to point out that neither this article, website nor the previous article in any way constitutes a copyright violation. Can someone please point out to me where the alleged copyright violation exists? GWidley 09:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyright problem explained at User Talk:Matsimons, where it appears that it may have been fixed. However there are plenty of other reasons to stop the spam campaign. Hu 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I would not like or appreciate this being removed as Iam VERY into learning and performing magic properley and before now there has been no leads for me to go on to learn. In fact I was considering "hanging up my wand". I would also like to know where the violation exists? JBelmont

• Delete: Fluff, and part of a spam campaign. I was leaning towards a "weak" delete, since if someone really wanted they could make a real article out of it, but I changed my mind to "definite delete" when I uncovered the campaign. This is one of several vehicles for link spam for the MAD commercial site which: 1) requires registration, 2) has prominent Google ads. Neither one is fatal, but they each raise a hurdle (Wikipedia:External Links that the user must overcome if they want to justify inclusion of the link, and it is higher since both strikes are against the link. The user (User:Matsimons contribs, talk) attempted (multiple times) to get the link into these articles: MAD, Magic (illusion), Magic (paranormal), Magic, Magician, Street magic, and Exposure (magic). The user also tried to get the link inserted as 192.93.164.20 contribs (talk). Additionally the user put the poorly written fluff text into Magic (illusion) and Magician. Delete all of it. Hu 10:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as part of spam campaign and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Matsimons, you should also read Wikipedia:Meatpuppets#Meatpuppets. -- Renesis (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Matsimons 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(Delete: Fluff, and part of a spam campaign.)

Total rubbish and a slur on my name

(This is one of several vehicles for link spam for the MAD commercial site)

It is not a commercial site in the slightest, it is a help forum that is free

(which: 1) requires registration, 2))

Yes the forum requires registration, only so that we do not have magic seekers and exposure hunters joining. But the link in the article is a link to a page that describes exactly what MAD is, so you can decide if you wnat to sign up or not

(ha1s prominent Google ads.)

WE dont have any google adverts, we dont have any adverts anywhere, you are obviously jumping to conclusions without researching very well. . .

((User:Matsimons contribs, talk) attempted (multiple times))

The link is part of the article, so why would it not be included?

(Delete all of it)

Before making such a sweeping statment you really should research correctly, to make accusations that are false only makes yourself look ignorant. Helping keep Wikipedia free from fluff and spam is a good thing, but make sure you have your facts correct first.

The whole issue here seems to be about link to a very relevant forum to the context of the article. The article itself is justified and so is an example of a forum, examples of books and magic clubs can be added, but I didnt want to add to many urls, I thought I would give others a chance so as not to be biased.

• False: It definitely does have Google ads right here. I checked now and half an hour ago. Google ads both times: http://magicartsdomain.proboards105.com/index.cgi/. Hu 11:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• True: Please show me where the google ads are as I have clicked the link and the only "ad" I could see was at the bottom stating keep the board ad-free. Iam willing to be proven wrong but at the moment I see nothing to back up your above statement. JBelmont

Matsimons 11:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I assumed the OP accusing of google adds was talking about adds at google advertising the forum, maybe the OP should have made it more clear, however I am sorry if I missunderstood, If you are talking about the forum itself having adverts this has nothing to do with the forum creators, we use a free forum supplier called proboards, they insert the adverts, not us. In no way is the site a commercial site for those who created it, we get a free servicem the service supplier has to recope that somehow. But there is no monetry gain for any of the creators or users of the forum. And if you did sign upto the forum just to check, you broke the rules of the forum, where we ask people not to sign up unless they want to be magicians. So I would ask you to remove your profile before i deleate it, unless of course you are interested in magic, and if thats the case we would be happuy to have you abourd.

• These are Google ads: Image:Wp-mad.jpg. Hu 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Matsimons 11:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

by all means show the add, as i said before its nothing to do with MAD itself. However are you not breaking copyright law by showing an image of the MAD logo that you do not have permision to use? As I hold allrights to that logo, I ask you to remove it from the screen grab. Thank you.

• This is fair use because it is for a debate which is a news use. It is simply documenting a fact that is in public dispute. Furthermore, when you yourself uploaded the logo to Wikipedia, that gives permission to use it in this kind of educational context. The use of the logo here is to give the bona fide that it really is the page, since apparently one of the users above could look at the page linked and still did not see the ads (note how "ads" is spelled). You spammed Wikipedia, then you deny everything in the debate, and then you grudgingly admit you were wrong and then you attempt to suppress the evidence and control the debate. Hu 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Matsimons 12:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC) sigh, again false information, I did not uplaod That image to wikipedia. And yes its fair use, but its still my right to ask you to remove it, even if you dont have to. Also the user you refer to may not have seen the adds, they do not pop up every time. I have denied nothing, infact I think you will see im disputing matters. I did not admit i was wrong, I admited that the issue was not to clear so I misunderstood, but I was happy to apologise. In will not alow false accusations of spamming and such go un answered. I also do not want to argue, I will dispute false claims and ask advice on how to correct them when I get it wrong.

80.5.91.220 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Excuse me but I think you'll find the spelling of "ads" is correct as "Ads" is short for advertisements of which there are no additional d's. And quite why you chose to bring it up confuses me. You almost seem to be inflammitory and provoking a response which I find wholly unnecessary. As an additional point, I have been refreshing the "MAD" site and up until now have found NO evidence of the screenshot you submitted. If I were to be inflammitory back I could say you doctored the picture to reinforce your point when for the last 30 minutes at least I have refreshed the page and found no advertisements appearing. JBelmont

• I did not claim that it was you, JBelmont, who did not spell "ads" incorrectly, so you can relax. I would have thought it was as clear from the context as it is from the text itself that it was Matsimons who did, several times, so it was not a typo. However, since you are interested in spelling, you might like to know that you (JBelmont in this case, to be clear) have spelled "inflammatory" incorrectly twice, so that was not a typo, either.
• If you click the link I posted in the line above where you made your reply headed "True" on this issue, you will see the Google ads. I have clicked that link four times half an hour apart each time, and seen the ads, as illustrated, four times out of four. I have not heard of a browser with blockers installed against Google ads, but I suppose they could exist. The ads do not depend on popups (I block popups). Here is the link again: http://magicartsdomain.proboards105.com/index.cgi/. You can see the ads under the login banner that says "Welcome guest". There are two or three that appear at a time in black text on a white background in a box. Just below the box to the left, there is a little tag that says "Ads by Google". To the lower right of the box, it says "Advertise on this site".
• To get back to the issue of why the article and the spam links should be deleted, writers here have explained that:
  • The article is not very informative and is basically obvious commonsense that is unnecessary in an encyclopedia.
  • The site link that is supposedly inseparable and integral to the article is non-notable.
  • The site fails the "no registration" criteria of the Wikipedia policy on external links.
  • The site fails the policy against links to sites that depend on advertising, even to support a free service.
  • The article has been duplicated word for word twice in two other articles.
  • The article has no sources or references.
  • The writer argues vehemently that the link is inseparable and integral, which leads to the conclusion that the purpose of the article and all the links that were posted to the articles noted above are just to publicize the site.
• This has been a long debate (so far), but I have tried to clarify all the issues and answer all the questions in support of the nomination and those urging delete. Hu 13:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

80.5.91.220 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC) * I was not interested in spelling I took offence when you quoted "since apparently one of the users above could look at the page linked and still did not see the ads (note how "ads" is spelled). which to me is implying there was some problem in the way I spelt "ads", due to the fact you were quoting someone not being able to see the "ads" which is myself. Additionally I have clicked and refreshed the new link you sent and still to the point of writing this reply do not see any "ads". So what happens? Do we agree to disagree as I only have your word that that screenshot is genuine.

• Oh and by the way "publicize" is not spelled with a z. It is an s.

• I still see no reason to delete the site when there are plenty of others which seem to get away with more violations than this site does. JBelmont

Wikipedia policy is to use British English for articles about British subjects and American English for articles about American subjects. The "-ize" versus "-ise" ending depends on which of those two you use. Since this debate is not in the article space, you should use either one as you feel comfortable and both are acceptable.

Regarding the ads on the site, people reading this debate will click the link (the same link, no change) and form their own conclusions. I begin to suspect that the ads do not appear in the U.K. or France, but do appear in the U.S. I'll be interested to hear some feedback on this. I think that Matsimons may be in France and you (JBelmont) may be in the U.K., based on your "brooks-no-argument" attitude regarding the "ise" ending.

I eagerly invite you to please point out the plenty of other links that you know of which have more violations, and we will be glad to inspect them and delete them if they are not appropriate according to Wikipedia policies. As I stated above, it is possible for a site to have advertising and/or registration, but to clear those hurdles, they have to show extraordinary usefulness. Hu 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Matsimons 14:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(* If you click the link I posted in the line above where you made your reply headed "True" on this issue, you will see the Google ads.)

Yes exaclty the link that you supplied, not me.

(I have clicked that link four times half an hour apart each time, and seen the ads)

Again, not a link I supplied, but to prove my previous point, I clicked the link that YOU supplied ten times and not once did I get adverts. you can check the screen grab here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:No_adds.jpg. Also I asked 5 work colleages to do the same, some got adds and some didnt.

(The article is not very informative and is basically obvious commonsense that is unnecessary in an encyclopedia.)

Not all of the information in the article is obvious, how would a new comer to learning magic know that some magic groups would not let you join unless you already had some magic knowledge, or that there are diferent types of forums, Wikipedia maybe the first point of reference, to sugest that its commonsense to know so is in my opinion a arogant statement and derogative towards magic new comers.

(o The site link that is supposedly inseparable and integral to the article is non-notable.)

I never sugested that it was, I was merely supplying a link that was relative to the context of the article to one of the discrbed forums. I didnt want to add more links to books or magic groups becasue I could not confim there credability, and was hopng others would do so at some point.

(o The site fails the "no registration" criteria of the Wikipedia policy on external links.)

I did not supply a link to a site that requires registration, I supplied a link to a information header page, that would then give the reader the opertunity to then decide whether or not to continue and join the forum.

(o The site fails the policy against links to sites that depend on advertising, even to support a free service.)

Again you are talking about a link that you supplied and not I, the information header page has no advertising and is certnaly not a redirect page.

(o The article has been duplicated word for word twice in two other articles.)

I do not dispute this, I didnt realise it was wrong to do so, If only a link to the article in question is permited then that all I would supply, I did however at the time think that the contect of the post was very relevant to the article that I posted in. This is my downfall on not knowing all Wikipedia rules, and I will comply to them when it is sugested froma creditable sourse.

(* This has been a long debate (so far), but I have tried to clarify all the issues and answer all the questions in support of the nomination and those urging delete. Hu 13:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

I agree, but to make your issues worthy, you need to adress this issue with the url you are supplying and the url I supplied. Also the fact that I do not think that the inseparable and integral to the article, but that I supplied the link because I thought it was relevant and would be helpfull to any one looking to learn magic as this is what the article is about. -- User:Matsimons

I have addressed it above where I wrote: I begin to suspect that the ads do not appear in the U.K. or France, but do appear in the U.S. I'll be interested to hear some feedback on this. I think that Matsimons may be in France and you (JBelmont) may be in the U.K. I await your reply. Are you in Europe? Hu 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

80.5.91.220 14:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC) * Iam aware of the American English and British English seperation, you felt you had to make a point to me regarding an incorrect spelling for no reason I can see other than "teaching me a lesson" of which I find quite childish. Iam in the UK you are correct, I cannot speak for Matsimons as I have no idea where he is, but I do not see why any advertisement would appear only in the U.S and not in the U.K. There are no advertisement blockers on my system at all so if the advertisment is there, I should see it. I can only go on what I see or do not see, and still I do not see the advertisments in question.

• I find this whole debate is being diluted into petty nit-picking so returning to the point: I disagree on your point of saying it is uninformative, I DO find it informative and others have aswell, I find it arrogant of you to dismiss the whole site because in your personal opinion it not informative.

• Finally I may list the sites in the future to you, but at this moment I do not feel it is necessary to the cause in hand which is whether or not the site in question is to be deleted or not. JBelmont

I have tried to bring it back to the topic at hand, the deletion, when I summarized the arguments for it, above, but that seems to have escaped you. With regard to the ads, the ad servers like google look up the IP address of the destination and when they find that it is located in the UK, they direct ads targeted for that audience according to the settings the advertisers have chosen. There are fewer Google advertisers targeting the UK than the US. Thus you see few or no ads. Matsimons colleagues do see some ads. You can drop the personal attacks where you call me arrogant and childish. I have not applied any adjectives to you and I don't think it is nessary to apply any to me. By not labelling you, it is another way I do my part to keep the debate on track. Hu 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Matsimons 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(Are you in Europe?)

yes I am in europe but not Franc?, the adverts do appear but not all the time. And the same goes for elsewhere in the world, sometimes you get them and sometimes you dont. This discusion has come up many times in proboard forums. But the real big issue is the link that I supplied does not have adverts. You keep refering to a link you are suppliyng. I now understand the rules about what links can and cant be supplied, thats why I supplied a link to the Information page that is hosted by me. I was asked by some of the admin at the forum to create a page that did not have advertising and that gave information about the forum so people could decide to join or not. It was that information that I placed int he first article MAD Magical Arts Domain. The only reason that that article was taken down was for copy right reasons, I failed to clarify that I had created the graphic, and that I had been given permision to use the text. That was my first ever article at Wikipedia and at the time did not realise what I had to citate or how to do it. -- Matsimons 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not about the link page, but it is the site that you wish to link to that has the ads and the registration. Read the Wikipedia policy link that I gave above. Now is better late than never. Hu 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not say the site was uninformative, though I suspect based on what others have said that it is not very useful. What I did say is that the article, here, on Wikipedia, is uninformative. Hu 15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The link above requires javascript to make the ads in question. Any browser that blocks the script from running will not see the ads. Dimitrii 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Thanks for the feedback! Hu 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Matsimons 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(It's not about the link page, but it is the site that you wish to link to)

This is exaclty the point, it is not a link page as you sugest it is, its a information page. Who said I wish to link to the forum, I was linking to an information site about the forum. You cant make judgments on what other links are at a site supplied,if that was the case at what level of referls what you stop at, as long as the link supplied conforms to Wikipedias rules thats all that matters surely.

(though I suspect based on what others have said that it is not very useful) How would they know? the rules of the forum are to only join if you want to be a dedicated magician. You should make your own conclusions rather than relying on false inforamtion given to you by others. Especialy when making such a dispute as you are. There are over 300 members of that forum who would totaly disagree.

I seem to be repeating myself again and again here. So untill anything new that has not been covered comes up or that adresses my answers to said questions I shall refrain from posting. -- Matsimons 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

ColourBurst asked you a question marked Comment, above, Matsimons. Also, the wikipedia way: Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~, at the end of them, not the front. Hu 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment To reiterate: How does the article satisfy WP:WEB? Which criteria does it satisfy? Where are the reliable sources? The article's contents aren't even substantiated by the link you gave (which is just a promotion of the forum - and don't give the line "it's only information about the forum, people can choose to go or not", it's still a promotion. Even if it wasn't, it's still not a reliable source. By pointing to a site about the forum and inserting the content in multiple articles, some of which have little to do with sleight of hand magic, then denying you're promoting the forum, you're straining WP:AGF.), so it's totally original research. And your link does not conform to WP:EL, it's unverifiable research. ColourBurst 17:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:WEB and is part of a series of articles designed as advertising for the site. Shell ^babelfish 17:00, 28 October 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.