Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally Out of Control

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Chris Kenner (magician). – Juliancolton | Talk 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Out of Control

[edit]
Totally Out of Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No good indication of notability. YouTube videos aside, the only refs are two book reviews and an Amazon advert. Falls way below the standard of WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: If Kenner's Totally Out of Control isn't notable for an article on Wikipedia, than nothing magic-related is... All the sources (besides the Amazon one) are all notable, established magic sources who's only link just happens to be through YouTube videos. I know this because I'm a professional sleight of hand artist. I also think everyone should bare in mind that finding sources for magic, cardistry or sleight of hand is very different than finding historical sources, for instance. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's a rundown of the sources:
Sources
  1. Scribd. This is a merchant source, since Scribd is selling the book. Merchant sources are almost never usable as a source in any context since their primary goal is to sell the consumer something and using it on Wikipedia can be seen as an endorsement of the site or product. It's used in the article to back up the David Copperfield claim, but the problem here is that Copperfield would be a WP:PRIMARY source at best if we wanted to quote the book since he was approached to write the foreword. As such, he's not a neutral source to comment on the book. It's highly unlikely that he'd write something negative.
  2. Vanishing Magic. This is another merchant source. It's used to back up the claims that the book has a cult following. Since they're trying to sell the consumer something (or were at some point in time), they're going to say things to make the book appealing. It might be a cult classic, but we can't rely on the merchant site to back up these claims.
  3. YouTube. YT videos are sort of a grey area. You first need to be able to prove that the uploader owns the rights to the video, then you need to prove that this would be a reliable source. I haven't gone through the video entirely yet (offhand it looks to be a general discussion of the library, not of any specific book), but I will say that inclusion in a library does not automatically mean that a book is notable enough for an entry, at least not at this point in time. At this point it's used as an exclusionary tool in that we can say that if a book isn't in any libraries, it's unlikely to have any sources. If it is in a library, then that makes it likely that sources will exist but will be neither a guarantee nor notability giving in and of itself.
  4. YouTube. Same issue here. Both of these videos seem to be used more to back up the claims for Kalush and aren't really being used to show how the book specifically is notable. I also get the impression that it's trying to say that the book is notable because this is where Sybil was first written about for the first time. This isn't necessarily something that would give notability since you would still have to show where this was notable by way of independent and reliable sources specifically discussing the book.
  5. YouTube, Wired. Same issues, we need to be able to explicitly show that this is about the book.
  6. YouTube, Kenner. Interviews are tricky. Sometimes they can be usable for notability, but you need to show that the people publishing the interview could be used as a reliable source. What makes it unlikely that Theory11 would be usable is because they are a merchant source. A look at their website shows that they sell cards. This doesn't really make them the greatest of sources, to be honest.
  7. Amazon. Another merchant source. One thing to mention about this is that it's being used to back up claims that the book is rare and expensive. You can't use things like this to back that up because prices on merchant sites like that are entirely set by the seller and book prices are one of those things that rarely show notability for a work. An especially rare or pricey book can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's far from a guarantee.
Basically, none of these sources are particularly strong at first glance. Only a few of the YT sources are potentially usable and I'm only saying that because I haven't had the chance to really look at them yet. I have a strong suspicion that if the book is mentioned, it's mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all. If you're trying to assert notability for a specific act then that's the sort of thing that would best be covered in an article about the magician rather than the book. This is partially because it's usually easier to assert notability for a person rather than one of their works. What we need here are things like reviews of the work itself and citations in reliable sources. YT sources in general are usually greatly depreciated on here because anyone can upload a video (meaning that there are questions about editorial control, oversight, and other typical WP:RS concerns) and copyright issues tend to be a common problem. Unless the people/person uploading the videos are extremely well known and reliable, they're usually seen as trivial or unusable sources.
Now I'm aware that this is in a niche genre and as such, will be unlikely to really have a lot of coverage. However it's still necessary for an article. That's why it might be a better idea to create an article for the magician himself rather than keep an article for the book. I haven't made up my mind yet and I still have to really look at the sources, but so far the sourcing here is fairly weak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far I've found one source, but it'd be a good one to establish that Kenner himself is a notable figure rather than notability for the book. It discusses his Sibyl card move and does mention the book, but only briefly. It may not do much for the book, but it does show that he's influential. If I can find a few more for him in general, I'll try to make an article for Kenner and support a redirect there. So far though, this doesn't really do an awful lot to show that the book specifically is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added yet another reliable source, "Quality Magic Books". I think it's pretty clear the book is notable now... Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality Magic Books looks to be a database at best and I can't really see anything about their editorial oversight when it comes to the reviews they post. That the About Us page links to a website where people can purchase things mentioned on QMB doesn't really help either. The conference link would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source at best, since bios of this nature are almost always written by the person or their representative and Kenner would be linked to the conference because he was involved with it to some degree. The Bicycle Cards doesn't really help either. I'd consider it a potentially usable RS when it comes to an article about the author, but it wouldn't be usable to show notability for the book itself, as it doesn't actually mention the book at all. It mentions the cut, but not the book. This might have been where it was first published, but that doesn't automatically mean that the book is notable. To be very honest, I think that your energy would be far better spent writing an article about Kenner himself rather than trying to rescue the article for the book. The basic info about the book can be covered in an article about Kenner and while I know that this isn't your ideal, this would still mean that the book's information would be on Wikipedia somewhere rather than an outright deletion.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you have created an article, so my suggestion is that this redirect to Chris Kenner (magician) with history. If sources ever do become available in the future they can be added and restoration sought, but right now I just don't see where the book is independently notable outside of Kenner. He is the creator of a notable card flourish, but books do not automatically become notable because it is the first place something is mentioned for the first time. It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's never a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that the suggestion by Tokyogirl79 to consolidate this in a biographical article makes sense. This article is always going to look promotional as currently written but within a wider context it might be fine.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A book with only 30 magic tricks? Notable? You be kidding. I don't buy an argument that sleight of hand is a niche subject: it is simply not. - üser:Altenmann >t
  • You ... clearly... don't know what counts for "only" in the magic business. I've been introducing myself as a sleight of hand artist since 2009 whenever I perform, and not once have I ever experienced a person not saying, "a what artist?". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't confuse the knowledge of an average American and notability criteria in wikipedia. (I bet most of them dont remember who John Tyler is.) There are tons of books about magic business and magicians. Even I own two (besides collections of tricks for kidz). - üser:Altenmann >t 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Totally_Out_of_Control&oldid=1070642664"