Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpsicle


 * 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   keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5  ( talk ) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Corpsicle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and also Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so therefore this article is inappropriate and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Science fiction concept that's been used in a number of notable works. Referenced; references could be improved, but they're good enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Frivolous cookie-cutter nomination. The article cites multiple sources and so it appears that the nominator has not read it. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Try "wikipedia is not a dictionary" then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Try reading the article? It's not a dictdef. And even if it were, there's a better solution in this case than deletion. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is more that a dictionary definition. I've added another book BTW. Kevin (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. When this article was prodded I made a suggestion on the talk page of better alternatives to deletion. Since apparently no attention was paid one way or another, I'm guessing the prod was merely a pre-AfD formality. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, Bryan, that appears to be the case. The usual thought put into the AfD.  --Blechnic (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Cryonics.  D C Edwards 1966  14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as its own article, as Kevin says, it is more than a dictionary definition and has adequate sources.
 * Keep - oh, come on. Not only can I not disagree with the assessment that the nominator has failed to read the article, but everyone's got a corpsicle story. We get stories written about science fiction story writers discussing their corpsicle stories. --Kiz o r  19:52, 3 June 2008 (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.