323:. 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.
368:
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
329:. 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
355:. 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.
307:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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
317:. 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.
367:
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
526:
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
529:
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
392:
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
375:
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
345:. 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
562:
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.
657:
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?".
235:. 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.
171:
769:
311:
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.
393:
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.
521:
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
558:
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
372:
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.
433:
As you mentioned, this is subject is somewhat niché and precisely because of that, I feel that these specific YT sources are perfectly acceptable. If you wish, I'll post the exact minute
124:
165:
254:
600:
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.
352:
231:
isn't notable for an article on
Knowledge (XXG), than nothing magic-related is... All the sources (besides the Amazon one) are all notable, established magic sources
509:
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
789:
644:
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
131:
97:
92:
101:
84:
202:
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
676:
is.) There are tons of books about magic business and magicians. Even I own two (besides collections of tricks for kidz). - üser:Altenmann
672:
Please don't confuse the knowledge of an average
American and notability criteria in wikipedia. (I bet most of them dont remember who
186:
17:
153:
269:
147:
821:
40:
801:
781:
760:
739:
714:
683:
667:
632:
610:
574:
546:
504:
486:
468:
450:
424:
404:
387:
274:
245:
215:
66:
495:
I've added yet another reliable source, "Quality Magic Books". I think it's pretty clear the book is notable now...
143:
304:
88:
314:
193:
723:
554:
51:
735:
710:
663:
628:
500:
482:
477:
I've added, also, a new source from "Bicycle
Playing Cards". That's two new, reliable non-merchant sources.
464:
446:
241:
80:
72:
513:
page links to a website where people can purchase things mentioned on QMB doesn't really help either. The
64:
817:
567:
539:
417:
397:
380:
36:
523:
376:
mind yet and I still have to really look at the sources, but so far the sourcing here is fairly weak.
518:
308:
159:
677:
645:
179:
731:
706:
659:
624:
496:
478:
460:
442:
237:
349:
shows that they sell cards. This doesn't really make them the greatest of sources, to be honest.
797:
777:
756:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
816:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
620:
597:
564:
536:
514:
414:
394:
377:
263:
203:
369:
793:
773:
752:
702:
604:
209:
751:
any relevant information which is not redundant into the article on Chris Kenner.
118:
339:. Same issues, we need to be able to explicitly show that this is about the book.
258:
619:
But that suggestion was made before my recent additions. I think we should her
527:
first published, but that doesn't automatically mean that the book is notable.
673:
342:
336:
326:
320:
510:
459:
I've added a new source, "Essential Magic
Conference", not a merchant site.
551:
I see that you have created an article, so my suggestion is that this
810:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
770:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
530:
mean that the book's information would be on
Knowledge (XXG)
413:
I'll post more sourcing on the talk page for this article.
346:
233:
who's only link just happens to be through YouTube videos
114:
110:
106:
747:, not notable enough as stand-alone article, and then
178:
730:
the info then if that's the only non-delete option.
192:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
824:). No further edits should be made to this page.
255:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
8:
788:Note: This debate has been included in the
768:Note: This debate has been included in the
253:Note: This debate has been included in the
790:list of Magic-related deletion discussions
787:
767:
289:
252:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
285:: Here's a rundown of the sources:
24:
736:Click here to collect your price!
664:Click here to collect your price!
629:Click here to collect your price!
596:- I think that the suggestion by
534:rather than an outright deletion.
501:Click here to collect your price!
483:Click here to collect your price!
465:Click here to collect your price!
447:Click here to collect your price!
242:Click here to collect your price!
1:
802:01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
782:01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
761:15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
740:13:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
715:00:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
575:09:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
547:09:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
67:18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
701:any useful information into
684:00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
668:00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
633:17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
611:17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
505:17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
487:17:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
469:17:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
451:12:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
425:11:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
405:11:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
388:11:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
275:00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
246:00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
216:23:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
841:
813:Please do not modify it.
697:as stand-alone article,
623:'s new opinion. Cheers,
32:Please do not modify it.
724:Chris Kenner (magician)
555:Chris Kenner (magician)
52:Chris Kenner (magician)
517:would be considered a
435:Totally Out of Control
229:Totally Out of Control
81:Totally Out of Control
73:Totally Out of Control
804:
784:
363:
362:
277:
273:
832:
815:
609:
571:
543:
437:is mentioned in
421:
401:
384:
290:
261:
214:
197:
196:
182:
134:
122:
104:
60:
34:
840:
839:
835:
834:
833:
831:
830:
829:
828:
822:deletion review
811:
601:
569:
541:
515:conference link
419:
399:
382:
364:
343:YouTube, Kenner
315:Vanishing Magic
295:
206:
139:
130:
95:
79:
76:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
838:
836:
827:
826:
806:
805:
785:
764:
763:
742:
717:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
652:
651:
638:
637:
636:
635:
614:
613:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
549:
507:
490:
489:
472:
471:
454:
453:
428:
427:
408:
407:
373:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
350:
340:
337:YouTube, Wired
334:
324:
318:
312:
297:
296:
293:
288:
287:
286:
279:
278:
250:
249:
248:
227:: If Kenner's
200:
199:
136:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
837:
825:
823:
819:
814:
808:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
786:
783:
779:
775:
771:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:
741:
737:
733:
732:Jonas Vinther
729:
725:
721:
718:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
693:
692:
685:
682:
681:
675:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
660:Jonas Vinther
656:
655:
654:
653:
650:
649:
643:
640:
639:
634:
630:
626:
625:Jonas Vinther
622:
618:
617:
616:
615:
612:
608:
607:
606:
599:
595:
592:
591:
576:
573:
572:
566:
561:
557:
556:
550:
548:
545:
544:
538:
535:
533:
525:
524:Bicycle Cards
520:
516:
512:
508:
506:
502:
498:
497:Jonas Vinther
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
484:
480:
479:Jonas Vinther
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
461:Jonas Vinther
458:
457:
456:
455:
452:
448:
444:
443:Jonas Vinther
440:
436:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
423:
422:
416:
412:
411:
410:
409:
406:
403:
402:
396:
391:
390:
389:
386:
385:
379:
374:
371:
366:
365:
354:
351:
348:
347:their website
344:
341:
338:
335:
332:
328:
325:
322:
319:
316:
313:
310:
306:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
292:
291:
284:
281:
280:
276:
271:
268:
265:
260:
256:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:Jonas Vinther
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
212:
211:
205:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
133:
129:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
62:
61:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
812:
809:
748:
744:
727:
719:
703:Chris Kenner
698:
694:
679:
647:
641:
603:
602:
593:
568:
559:
553:redirect to
552:
540:
531:
528:
438:
434:
418:
398:
381:
330:
282:
266:
232:
228:
224:
223:
208:
207:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
127:
59:Juliancolton
56:
50:redirect to
49:
47:
31:
28:
621:Tokyogirl79
598:Tokyogirl79
565:Tokyogirl79
537:Tokyogirl79
415:Tokyogirl79
395:Tokyogirl79
378:Tokyogirl79
225:Strong keep
166:free images
674:John Tyler
519:WP:PRIMARY
309:WP:PRIMARY
818:talk page
794:• Gene93k
774:• Gene93k
532:somewhere
441:of them.
37:talk page
820:or in a
720:Redirect
511:About Us
331:the book
125:View log
39:or in a
753:Kierzek
605:Velella
594:Comment
570:(｡◕‿◕｡)
542:(｡◕‿◕｡)
420:(｡◕‿◕｡)
400:(｡◕‿◕｡)
383:(｡◕‿◕｡)
327:YouTube
321:YouTube
294:Sources
283:Comment
210:Velella
172:WP refs
160:scholar
98:protect
93:history
745:Delete
695:Delete
642:delete
353:Amazon
305:Scribd
259:JJMC89
204:WP:GNG
144:Google
102:delete
749:merge
728:merge
722:into
699:merge
678:: -->
646:: -->
370:WP:RS
187:JSTOR
148:books
132:Stats
119:views
111:watch
107:links
55:. –
16:<
798:talk
778:talk
757:talk
726:and
711:talk
257:. —
180:FENS
154:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
734:• (
707:BMK
662:• (
627:• (
499:• (
481:• (
463:• (
445:• (
439:all
240:• (
194:TWL
123:– (
800:)
792:.
780:)
772:.
759:)
738:)
713:)
705:.
666:)
631:)
560:is
503:)
485:)
467:)
449:)
244:)
174:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
63:|
796:(
776:(
755:(
709:(
680:t
648:t
333:.
272:)
270:C
267:·
264:T
262:(
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
128:·
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.