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. - Mailer Diablo 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporeal reanimation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The term “corporeal reanimation” seems to have practically no existence other than the GNU net propagation of this poorly constructed article. The article has now existed for more than a year, and yet consists almost entirely of unreferenced statements and apparent personal research. How “corporeal reanimation”, if it even exists as a legitimate term in science or theology, is distinct from established concepts of resuscitation or resurrection is never made clear. The article is unencyclopedic, and should be deleted. Cryobiologist 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete or merge with cryonics for now. While the concept of bringing the deceased back to life has often been researched, I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that this article isn't any good. --Ixfd64 21:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 06:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or merge with zombie (NOT with cryonics). The entry says nothing unique. It is an uninteresting rehash of the zombie concept under another name without adding anything substantive. --GirlForLife 04:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.