Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 2

Corporeal reanimation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was about the concept of bringing dead organisms back to life via technological means. It was deleted (and later redirected to undead) because it was "nothing unique" and "unencyclopedic" (see this AfD). A Google search for "corporeal reanimation" returns less than 500 results, most of which were copied from Wikipedia. I even personally cast a "weak delete" vote on the AfD since the article was poorly written. However, several other articles discuss the possibility of bringing the dead back to life. The concept of using technology to reverse death seems notable enough, but there are no centralized articles on this subject. I've changed my mind, and I don't think that we should delete articles just because they weren't well written. Also, the concept of "corporal reanimation" appears in many works of fiction, such as the Universal Soldier films. The article should be restored, but it should also be renamed and completely rewritten. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is very much a different concept that "undead"; if there are sufficient references, it deserves another article.How would you rename it? "Reanimation" is used in a much more general sense.DGG (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Question (actually a few) How does undeleting, renaming and then completely rewriting this article differ from just writing a new article under the proper name? If this article was about something different and had sources which this one didn't, and had a different name, and was written differently altogether, then it could have been kept, so now 13 months after deletion, we should undelete it? What am I missing? JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have to agree with Jerry. If the article's going to be rewritten anyway, why not just write a new article in your Userspace and then move it to article space when finished? -- Kesh (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Jerry; given the proposal the correct course of action is to write the new article (title not yet proposed) and then, if suitable, change the redirect. GRBerry 21:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Mo Capaldi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

how can mike mo capaldi be deleted? he's one of the best and most well-known ameteurs in the history of skateboarding. he deserves a wikipedia. canb't you let someone edit it better? wait i have an idea how about if he turns proffesional and becomes more noticable you allow someone to make him a page. i mean ryan sheckler has a wikipedia and he isn't even a good skater. mike mo is so please think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skateskeet (talk • contribs)

• Good or not, any article needs to be backed up with reliable sources to indicate that the subject meets the notability guidelines. Ryan Sheckler most emphatically meets notability, what with championships, reality TV shows, et al... A look at the deleted article says it dropped a lot of names of sponsors, but didn't have any actual references, nor did it do much to assert notability. Endorse deletion of that version, with no prejudice to the nominator creating an article in his/her userspace that does meet notability if possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Restore It does not have to have references to pass speedy for notability. It does not have to demonstrate notability. It does not have to be good enough to pass AfD, or to stay in WP. The most unreferenced undocumented poorly written article will pass speedy for notability is it indicates something that might be notable. In this case, saying one is "one of the most well-known ameteurs in skateboarding." might not itself be regarded as a credible assertion, but coupled with the claimed endorsements of major companies (" Girl Skateboards, Lakai, Matix Clothing, Royal Trucks, Fillmore Wheels, Diamond Co., Mob Griptape, IG Boardshop and Skatelab. " four of which are notable enough for WP articles, its a reasonable assertion. Any good faith assertion that someone might reasonably think encyclopedic is acceptable. (the exception of course if it is an attack page & comes under BLP, but looking at the deleted article, it doesnt say anything controversial or negative. ) But Tony is correct that it will be rapidly deleted at AfD unless some sources are available.DGG (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion generally speaking, we don't keep athletes unless they're considered professionals, and I see no reason not to apply this to skaters as well. The fact that the article was completely unsourced further drives the point home. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. The speedy deletion criteria are very limited in scope for very good reasons. This deletion was out of process. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Restore & list at AfD. The article makes a borderline assertion of notability, which disqualifies it from an A7 deletion. However, as it stands, it's an unsourced article about a 17-year old amateur skateboarder that has all of two lines of encyclopedic content. Caknuck (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Restore List at AfD if deemed necessary. I can't read it, but from the log and the discussion here, it sounds like a not particularly well-made article was taken for a vanity one. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)