Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information-theoretic death (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 keep. Concept appears to be notable even if it does not relate to any accepted form of medicine. RL0919 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Information-theoretic death
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a dictionary definition of a neologism used primarily by the pseudoscience of cryonics. Sources are either in-universe or tangential. The mainstream term for this concept is: death. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cryonics, protect redirect - the sources are bad, and are an attempt to create notability where there isn't really any. In particular speculative single papers do not pass WP:MEDRS - the term isn't quite "coatrack", but it is an attempt to refbomb with bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The refbombed para has been removed as a WP:MEDRS violation, per the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a dictionary definition – see WP:DICDEF, which explains the difference between a short article and a dictionary entry which focusses on a particular word – its etymology, grammar, spelling, &c. Moreover, the definition of death is not as simple as the nomination suggests.  See brain death which goes into detail about this, distinguishing between death of the brainstem and the cerebrum, for example.  The topic by this title gets a reasonable level of hits on Google Scholar and so seems notable enough for our purpose.  Note also that similar issues arise with computers and so we have pages such as data erasure.  Note also that deletion on Wikipedia doesn't actually mean loss of the data – the information is just restricted to admins who can readily make it available again.  Note also that, when people die, their online existence and data is increasingly preserved.  For example, Wikipedia accounts and user pages are normally kept when an editor dies – see digital afterlife.  So, given all these angles and considerations, we should prefer alternatives to deletion per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This doesn't sound like a policy-based keep reason at all - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DICDEF, WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE are three separate policies. David Gerard did not appear to cite any policies in his !vote.  So, that's 3-0.  Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and Restore See Articles for Deletion/Information-theoretic death. The attempt to gut the article and remove all the sources and here is an attempt to preempt this discussion; and thereby thwart WP:Consensus.  It is a Self-fulfilling prophecy.  He is doing by indirection that which he cannot do by direction.
 * No compliance with WP:Before. There are lots of sources at Google Books and Google Scholar. You will find a whole library full of books and articles dealing with this subject. No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment.  That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.  The concept and the article are worth saving. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not "gut", just get back to WP:MEDRS with no WP:SYN. What I am looking for is any evidence of currency other than the original coiner of the term, other than in the corpsicle community. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Walt Disney [Sorry, he was cremated.] Ted Williams and FM-2030 says you are 'wrong', or he will when he is thawed out.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears a nonsense response - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was in keeping with "corpsicle community" which appears to be a nonsense pejorative defamation. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to read more sci-fi - which is, incidentally, the one field where this is taken seriously. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The collated sources were a WP:MEDRS violation - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep We had an extended discussion of this article at the first AfD about 2 1/2 years ago. The article was cleaned up to a well-referenced stub and the consensus was to keep the article. I see nothing between then and now that would change that consensus. This is obviously not a dicdef, as it is all about the philosophical concept of information theoretic death and its meaning and impact, not lexicographic information. As a philosophical concept, it has been discussed by neuroscientists and connectionist philosophers; I can pull sources for this from the first AfD if you like. Yes, cryonics folks, too, but by now it has broader impact. That MEDRS has any bearing on this is absurd, as reading say, the connectome to recover a person or their mind, is pure science fantasy, far outside of medicine. It would be like complaining about religious folks who define death as 'the soul leaving the body' as non-mainstream medicine and too fringey to keep. The first AfD found this topic to be notable, and the sources sufficient to support a short article; these still hold. Hence, keep. -- 20:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I found the National Review defining it. Also Wired (magazine) . It is a real thing.  How much valid information can be in the article?  If too short then start a merge discussion.  But don't delete it.   D r e a m Focus  14:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not an article about any practical form of human medicine..It says nothing about he prevention or therapy of any disease. It's speculation, but notable speculation. MEDRS is irrelevant.  DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep But entry needs expanding to be more useful than just a definition.--Davidcpearce (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – The concept is notable, whether editors like it or not. Article needs lots of work, though. If it can't be readily expanded, a redirect to Cryonics or to Brain death might do. — JFG talk 15:45, 31 January 2019 (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.