Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copperfield Death Saw

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, on the balance of arguments presented plus a quick sanity check which finds that (a) the article is unreferenced; (b) there are only 26 unique Google hits for "Copperfield Death Saw"; (c) Copperfield's own site does not figure in that list, so that doesn't appear to be what he calls it. Wrong content, wrong title. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copperfield Death Saw

Copperfield Death Saw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It's hard to fix although the trick is curectly discribed, doomed to remain a stub, would be better if made into a section of a bigger article.

• Delete if author doesn't show up to cite a reference; merge to David Copperfield if they do. A Train ^{take the} 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverified Coperfieldcruft. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into David Copperfield. Probably pertinent enough there. --Moralis 07:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. SkierRMH,09:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• It's already a section of a bigger article, being described in sawing a woman in half in pretty much the same way (as a variation on a tried-and-tested illusion) as it is in this source. Uncle G 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Moralis. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not all magic tricks deserve their own artice FirefoxMan 16:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because sounds fascinating, or make a list of Copperfield tricks. Best, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Firefoxman. --Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per FirefoxMan and it's not sourced.≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Sawing a woman in half, or delete. (I do not oppose a delete consensus.} Says very little not already in that article; chiefly that the saw appears to be automatic. Reads like fancruft or copyvio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as there is no information of value that is not already found in Sawing a woman in half. A Merge would simply amount to a delete, anyway. ZZ 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 17:35, 19 December 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.