Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme card manipulation

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 ambiguous. 7 delete, 5 keep/merge/redirect although I think that most of the arguments for deletion (neologism withut widespread usage) were never really answered. I am not sure at all whether any of this can or should be merged but without a clear consensus to delete outright, I will call this one a redirect to card magic and leave the history in tact for anyone who wants to merge some of it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme card manipulation

This article has clearly been set up by a few people who have a private subculture going and early edits were extremely POV. Now the authors contradict themselves by adding the name of a noted magician Ricky Jay as an ECM master; he's gonna be surprised for sure! ECM people claim that what they do has nothing to do with magic; so magicians by their definition cannot be ECM. make your own mind up. It has been hurting my brain.Grroin 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. we let this one stay then every little clique is gonna have their promo page on wikipedia. Grroin 01:08, 22 November 2005 Grroin 01:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Grroin. Turnstep 16:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Durova 17:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to card magic and remove self-promoting text. You talked me into it. Durova 09:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• "Extreme card manipulation" is, purportedly, the manipulation of a deck of playing cards merely as a feat of dexterity. However, searching reveals that the only people who believe that this concept exists are those who are selling their DVDs of "extreme card manipulation" — via the web site that the article used to link to. To contrast this with recognized skills: One can find prestidigitation discussed in a wide assortment of published works on magic by separate sources. One can find shuffling discussed in many separately sourced published works on card games, card tricks, and recreational mathematics. One can find separately sourced books and even take courses on juggling. There's nothing, apart from information from a single source, about "extreme card manipulation". This concept simply hasn't been accepted by anyone other than the people selling it. An encyclopaedia article will be warranted when other people, independent of its creators, go to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about this subject. Delete. Uncle G 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Vanity, neologism, self-promotion... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC) P. S. No hits for extract phrase "extreme card manipulation" in Google Books. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see the contradiction between magic and XCM. It's like calling "juggler" a magician who does only juggling in his performance, isn't it? As for the vanity/neologism argument, it has already been coined, and it is obviously (as this discussion shows) known outside their community, so perhaps a neutral article about this topic would be useful? If you don't like them, consider that deletion will have exactly the opposite effect - if someone hears the term, he will look up it in Google instead of Wikipedia, and will get only POV information about the subject. From what I have heard, there is a fashion lately to do "magic" consisting just of flourishes, so it needs to be called somehow anyway. Samohyl Jan 02:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just for using the word extreme (just kidding: actually per nom). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to card magic and make explicit mention of the fact it can be done as a display of dexterity. Just because XCM isn't magic, doesn't mean magicians can't practice it. In fact, a lot of magicians are pretty good at it because they can use their skills in magic card manipulation to help them in this. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I am persuaded by Uncle G above and am in emphatic agreement with him on all the points he raises. Absolutely no grounds to merge this article as there is insufficient disinterested, independent corroboration out there that this is a legitimate and accepted category. Would set a bad precedent for Wiki being used for self-promotion. The early entries on the page were blatantly POV and as Uncle G points out were patently self-promotional. I personally know three highly notable card magicians and what weighs for me even more than the discussion here is that they have never heard of this concept. And by the way - these magicians are every bit as skilled as so-called extreme manipulators. What this boils down to is that there appears to be a tiny (very tiny) sect out there who have decided that they don't want to be associated with the word magic or indeed its practice but just want to focus on flourishes; these are not grounds to justify a Wiki page. At most - and this would seem necessary even - exponents of extreme should simply be listed under a (newly created) list of highly rated exponents of flourishes and on the latter page. The term extreme card manipulation (or XCM) itself is so blatantly a neologism coined for self-gain purposes and is so incontrovertibly not in bona fide currency that one should forebear from giving it any oxygen of publicity that a Wiki mention confers. As some of you know on this page, I have made contributions to practically every magic related page on Wiki - but this one for me was beyond salvage. Look at the first ever edit - unabashedly crediting the alleged originator of the term and listing that person's instructional DVDs. I am amazed we haven't AfD before! Tiksustoo 11:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment See User_talk:Dpbsmith#Extreme card manipulation for a reply to a query by MgM. I'm all for expanding Card magic —which currently illustrates the article with two examples of purely-decorative flourishes—but I don't see that the current article contains anything useful to merge, and I don't want Extreme card manipulation left in place even as a redirect unless it can be shown that it is term generally accepted within the magic community. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preaky 22:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with this page. EddieSegoura 01:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Eddie, please format your vote properly, remember the asterisk before your vote. Seeing "nothing wrong" with a page is almost not good a criteria for a page to be kept. And now, my vote - merge per Durova. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 02:00, 25 November 2005 (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.