Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpsicle (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge to Suspended animation in fiction per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Corpsicle
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NEOLOGISM that does not have more than a passing mention in reliable independent sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 10:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot find all sources the article currently has on the Internet, but I think the Sci-fi dictionary counts as one source, giving a definition, instances of appearance and a bit of commentary. It surely is not a passing mention! Similarly in Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction, p. 28. Then we have Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas, pages 47-48, and arguably a long discussion in 10 Short Lessons in Time Travel, the whole chapter 3, although that is all about the concept, rather than the neologistic term. Thus WP:GNG is fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SFD is a dictionary and provides a dictionary entry. WP:NOTADICTIONARY... BNW seems to be just SFD in print (dictionary). I can't access The next source which you didn't link, but the last one is about cryogenics/suspended animation, and just used corpsicle in its title. So, zero WP:SIGCOV about this term that I see. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the actual topic here is cryonics in fiction, an article that does not currently exist (though the broader topic suspended animation in fiction does, even if it definitely needs a rewrite), rather than the term "corpsicle" itself. For now, a reasonable WP:Alternative to deletion might be to selectively merge a few sentences to Suspended animation in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous discussion. Artw (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge referenced parts to suspended animation in fiction. I am not seeing any content - or arguments/sources here - that provide WP:SIGCOV. This is just a sf jargon used in the context of the linked to article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Suspended animation in fiction: Some of the cited material belongs in the main article on the topic. In general, most neologisms are not notable by Wikipedian standards. I found a few mentions, definitions and dictionary entries, but I could not find much else. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction's brief entry is perhaps the best of these. However, the entry's description of the term is little different from a dictionary definition. There are enough sources for a Wiktionary entry, and I could see it as a mentioned term in the main article on suspended animation in fiction. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 03:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has a lengthy entry in Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas. That has far more encyclopaedic discussion than the OED SF Encyclopedia link  criticised above for being "too dictionary".  It is also briefly touched on in How to Live Forever: Science Fiction and Philosophy and discussed at length in All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future.  I am also swayed by the claim in this source that the term is "a common sci-fi trope".  The source is self-published so can't be used as an RS, but it says to me that we should have an article on it. SpinningSpark 11:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The term corpsicle—which is the topic of the article under discussion—is categorically not discussed at length by All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future (the full discussion of the term is Corpsicle is a portmanteau word derived from 'corpse' and 'popsicle'. Pohl coined the terms in his essay "Immortality Through Freezing" (1966) and his novel The Age of the Pussyfoot (1969). in a footnote). The concept of cryonics in fiction is discussed for roughly a page, however. Likewise, How to Live Forever: Science Fiction and Philosophy only says of the term that Niven's irresistible term for the frozen would-be-living is 'corpsicle'. The discussion of the term in Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas amounts to The term was invented by Frederick Pohl in 1969 in his novel The Age of the Pussyfoot [...] The word is clearly a variant of popsicle (and icicle) and shows a certain level of disrespect for cryonics or at least for those who have participated in the process.You seem to be conflating the term with the concept. The article is about the former, whereas your arguments mostly apply to the latter. Is there any good reason why we should cover the term separately from the concept? If there isn't, I don't see why we shouldn't merge to suspended animation in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, I had not linked to the correct page in All the Wonder that Would Be, which I have now fixed. The discussion is section 10.1.3 "Copsicles" beginning on page 274.  The quotation you give is merely an endnote at the end of the chapter on page 294.  There is much more than this.
 * Yes, I do think this is a different concept from "suspended animation", or at least, it is a subset of it. Corpsicle is a derogatory term especially used when the bodies concerned are being put to some immoral or criminal purpose.  That is what all the stories (or most of them) that use the term are concerned with.  It is a means of dehumanising the people who have been frozen so they can be treated as commodities. Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On the How to Live Forever source, you have completely misrepresented it with a very selective quote. The section is titled "Corpsicle" and it is discussing something more specific than "Cryonics" which has its own section in the book.  Your opinion may be that it is "only" discussing cryonics but that is clearly not what the author thinks.  He puts the related term "Bridesicle" under the same heading because this is another way in which the "freezees" can be exploited.  It is not merely because the terms are obviously etymologically related. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion on page 274–275 (section 10.1.3) of All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future is indeed what I referred to when I said The concept of cryonics in fiction is discussed for roughly a page, however.. I have previously read the entire chapter for Immortality in fiction, so I'm familiar with the source. Page 274–275 does not contain discussion of the term corpsicle, that part is solely confined to the endnote on page 294. The discussion on page 274–275 is about the use of cryonics as a means to achieve immortality in the context of fictional works. Section 10.1 "How to Live Forever" (page 266–278) is all about various means to achieve immortality in the context of fictional works, while section 10.2 "The Time of Our Lives" (page 278–293) approaches the same topic in the context of the real world (cryonics gets mentioned again in section 10.2.3 "Cryonics" on page 287–289). TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you meant Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas rather than How to Live Forever. Anyway, the reason I gave you a rather brief quote is because that's the only discussion of the term "corpsicle", as opposed to the broader concept. If it is the case that WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which what the article currently claims (the hatnote says This article is about a term. For the television episode, see List of Pushing Daisies episodes.), then that is the only relevant part. If you want the article to be about the exploitation of cryonically frozen people in fiction, then that would constitute a significant scope shift and I would argue that it would be better to cover that topic as part of the supertopic cryonics in fiction or suspended animation in fiction; Corpsicle would at any rate not be a terribly appropriate title for the as-yet-unwritten article on the topic of the exploitation of cryonically frozen people in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (after ec, not yet absorbed your last comment) I cannot agree that the "Corpsicle" section amounts to one of the methods of achiving immortality. It is not – the method is cryonics, which is a separate section.  The "Corpsicle" section is about abuse of the bodies, or about authors who have written stories with that as a theme.  If the "Corpsicle" section were about the method of cryonics, there would be no need for a "Cryonics" section.  You have failed to answer me on why the author is making that distinction if it is not for what I said. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason Stephen Webb wrote one "Corpsicles" section (10.1.3) and one "Cryonics" section (10.2.3) in All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future is that the former discusses the concept in fiction and the latter the real-world applications, as I said above. TompaDompa (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it's peculiar that on the first page of the "Cryonics" section, Webb mentions four different SF authors and gives a detailed plot summary of The Jameson Satellite. Or perhaps not so peculiar given that the theme of the book is the predictions of SF for the future. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You may find it peculiar, but the explanation for the separate sections is that roughly the first half of the chapter (10.1 "How to Live Forever") focuses on immortality in science fiction (and how it might be achieved) and the second half (10.2 "The Time of Our Lives") on ditto in real life. If you have the time, reading the entire chapter will make this abundantly clear (otherwise, you can start by reading the introduction to 10.1 on page 266–277 and the introduction to 10.2 on page 278–279).It's also not actually true, contrary to your assertion, that the "Corpsicles" section (10.1.3) is about abuse of the bodies, or about authors who have written stories with that as a theme. The section discusses six works: The Age of the Pussyfoot, Bug Jack Barron, Why Call Them Back From Heaven?, "The Defenseless Dead", "Wait it Out", and "Doing Lennon", but only discusses the abuse/exploitation of the frozen bodies in the context of one of these: "The Defenseless Dead". For The Age of the Pussyfoot and Bug Jack Barron, Webb discusses the general concept of being preserved cryonically until medical progress has rendered one's cause of death reversible. For Why Call Them Back From Heaven? the discussion is about various drawbacks but notably not the abuse/exploitation of the frozen bodies. For "Wait it Out" it's about being conscious while cryonically frozen and for "Doing Lennon" it's about impersonation. As the section itself concludes: Numerous stories, then, use cryopreservation as a form of time travel—as a shortcut to a future in which (it is hoped) science has cracked the problem of immortality. It's a means of putting death on hold.This is all rather a tangent of course, since the real question is whether we should have one article covering the term corpsicle and another covering the concept. I don't see a good reason to fork it like that. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to suspended animation in fiction makes sense to me. Most of the sources justify inclusion in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Some do elaborate a bit more, but leave me wondering why we would need a separate stand-alone article on this term when the broader subject is already covered. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Suspended animation in fiction,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from.


 * Merge into Suspended animation in fiction and redirect. This is not Wiktionary. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree to Merge to Suspended animation in fiction. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.