Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Design System
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 April 5. 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 Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Human Design System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I don't know whether this 'system' is notable enough for an article. I've tried tagging it for innappropriate tone, being unreferenced and notability, but these are just removed by what appears to be a SPA. So I'm sending it to AfD to get a community view on its encyclopedic merit or not. Polly (Parrot) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea Culpa! I was in the midst of this edit and did not recognize the 'tagging' during the editing. I have references, and would add them, but this blew up in the middle of what I was doing. As for the tone, it seems the primary objection is references. Would adding references 'save' this? The article has permission from the copyright holder (not me) for free access and reprint of the contents, even the screenshots.
- If you are not familiar with Human Design, then I'm not sure that you are actually qualified as to the merit of including the topic or not, in regards to notability. I believe if you "google" Human Design System, you will see there are 1000's of websites, and a wide community world wide. This article does not promote any particular person, business, or website, and is an attempt to give a neutral, yet complete picture of the current Human Design community - by including 'licensed' professional designations, and 'licensed' services - there is an attempt to help people avoid scams and false representation about Human Design.Secretofbeingyou (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)User talk:secretofbeingyou\[reply]
This seems to be a commercial website, promoting a commercial software package and listing perhaps all books that the mentor of this system has published.
I do not understand the use of the expression "maps each individual’s unique genetic highlighting" in this article. Mapping genetic highlights or characteristics has absolutely nothing to do with human design. Genetic mapping is a hard, labour intensive, time and resource consuming process done by geneticists/molecular biologists that has no connection with whatever may be the output of the human design system. And why would the word genetic be used here anyway? Please explain us what is your understanding of genetics and how does it relate to human design.
It would be of interest for the person who created the system to thoroughly explain what is the reliability of each of the decisions the algorithms take while creating the bodygraph, that is, what's the probability of a center or gate/channel decision being right, regardless of its meaning? 50%? More? Less?
--Mfc10 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "trained" in Human Design, but I have read a few books on it, and have played around with it. I would describe it as a form of astrology. I have found it useful for understanding the personalities and talents of the people around me. So I would recommend that the Human Design entry not be deleted. However, this entry is VERY BADLY WRITTEN: it is disorganized, verbose, and contains wild speculation. Best to reduce the length of this article to a few paragraphs, list relevant websites for additional information, and present Human Design as a tentative system for understanding human behavior and destiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor6405 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising for a commercial product of unestablished notability. Oh, and every reference to a supposedly scientific subject is total gibberish. Anville (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (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.