Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cryonics Institute

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cryonics Institute


Nothing remarkable about this business that froze a few people. Deleted 6 months ago at Articles for deletion/Cryonics Institute Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would think that we could merge this somewhere, to an article more generally addressing enterprises or organizations engaged in this sort of cryonics activity. bd2412  T 05:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - We have already had a deletion discussion. This draft reads like a marketing brochure, and doesn't appear to be likely to improve on the deleted article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article was just doubled in size, adding a bunch of sources. AfD wasn't deleted as not notable. In fact comments gave the opposite impression (allow recreation). It was speedy deleted before. If you think it qualifies for speedy now, tag it. It doesn't qualify for other deletion, though. Nominated on the same day someone doubled the size of the page... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete because the draft is such a mess; maybe the company is notable, but this is not a viable draft. It is promotional; most of it is duplicated on the page (a consierable part of the "doubling in size" consisted of duplicating the existing text, though a few sources were added); it contains a couple of secondary sources, one of which talks about it in some detail, but the rest of the sources are affiliated or trivial mentions; it contains copyright violations. The copyvios would make it necessary to revdel parts of it, so the nuclear option seems simpler, since there's actually very little there to build on. --bonadea contributions talk 10:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete there's maybe one substantial source there, and I agree with Robert McClenon's comments above about how the draft reads. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:48, 29 November 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.