Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Instrumentality Project

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 January 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Instrumentality Project

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

Much of the page contains substantial original research and without it, is reduced to a stub that's fit only for merging InsaneZeroG (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --InsaneZeroG (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. The lack of references is a serious problem for an article that long. Chutznik (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm Consists entirely of excessively detailed plot and original research. Only one reference (which is actually a link) which is an article from an defunct online magazine, and gives the author as "Carl G. Horn". Carl (Gustav) Horn is/was an editor at Viz media who has credits on the english adaption of the Evangelion manga as well as other unrelated series. He has written notes and articles that have been included in the english volumes, and is clearly a reliable source on the subject. That said, I'm not sure we can use someone's userspace as a location for a reliable source, theres no telling how much of the content is the same as what Horn published. At the very least the article needs a complete rewrite, and I'm not convinced that the subject matter can really stand alone when it's essentially plot detail and the examination and interpretation of it (regardless of it being OR or a published writer's article). Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are found later, looks to be 100% orginal research. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT for the publication of someone's personal opinions and self-research. This is a non-notable fictional concept from the Neon Genesis Evangelion franchise. The one claimed source buried in the article might be usable elsewhere, but there is nothing in this article to salvage for merging or redirecting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) - as a valid search term, since it is a term used in the anime, and a core plot point. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-harsh of plot + Original Research. More critical is the complete absence of evidence of notability, why this subject should have an article? In absence of convincing answer this article should be deleted. --KrebMarkt 08:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge if any of the material is needed. No basis for not doing at least a redirect. As plot summaries go, we do not have any firm rules for amount of detail, but this is by my standards considerably excessive. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) or Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary...I would lean toward the latter since the term is used in that article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article contains no sources and could possibly hold original research. tyhe enitre article is written from NGE series' point of view even though it originates from other sources.
Redirect to the glossary article, as there's a section in there which treats the subject of this article. --Malkinann (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, if any non-OR can be found, merge it to the NGE article. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how would we know if most or none of it is OR? what would be the point of moving it if once it is moved, it would still contain OR. we would need to find sources before redirecting.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) or Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary (I'm honestly not sure which is better). The term is very much a valid search term, as it's a major component of the series, and so should not be lost. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (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.