Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-encyclopedic content; a personal essay, a hotchpotch of fan speculation and original research. Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Additionally, checking the talk page history, most of the problems with that article have been discussed since 2008 and earlier with no improvement. Some of the material, if it can be properly sourced, may be able to be merged into various articles about the franchise (specific film and tv articles or the franchise article). But most of it is useless in wikipedia terms. Millahnna (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Orangemike. There are no references to support what looks like original research. I don´t think there is any salvageble content to be merged into Ghost in the Shell.--Rogerx2 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all the above comments. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research and fancruft. Any salvageable content can be mentioned briefly at the main Ghost in the Shell article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also no JA wikipedia article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:02, 5 May 2017 (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.