Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needle Through Thumb

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 No consensus. The knotty question of whether it violates not or not was not agreed upon. Definitely could do with sourcing though to establish notability, otherwise it's likely to end up back here. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needle Through Thumb[edit]

How-to article on magic trick (see WP:NOT). Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately it's not a "big" trick like the bullet catch that has a great history and a large amount of material written about it. Although known, its not WP:NOTABLE and as it stands its nothing more than a how to which fails WP:NOT LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Cute piece, and would normally agree with nominator. But a little research I found that we currently have a piece called List of magic tricks that has been around since 2003. In other words, keep article and add to list. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hrm...a lot of the parlor magic tricks in that list are not even red link, but black as most of the articles about parlor tricks could never be more than a how to...I can poke around and see if I can find some history, but I would think that the history of all the parlor tricks would be repetitive through each article as they've all got pretty much the same origin. Even the Parlor magic article is pretty lame and needs help. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles may be lame, but that means they need to improved, not deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article doesn't really explain how to do the trick, it simply explains the trick. So I don't think that WP:NOT applies. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it explains the trick enough to be WP:NOT#HOWTO material. The lack of WP:RS is also telling. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources is a concern, I agree. But a lack of sources is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve the sourcing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's at least a scruffy foundation of exterior reference to build off of. I think it'd probably be possible to demonstrate this as a notably universal magic trick. WP:NOT issue is a bit secondary. At worst, it could be alleviated by removing the Method section. - Vianello (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be (at least) marginally notable, and it may be possible to find sources to back it up. J.delanoy ^gabs analyze 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.