San Andreas Multiplayer (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion failed on 2 reviews, was then silently deleted later on a 3rd attempt once it was believed to be safe. In addition, the modification has reached even higher status in subsequent years after the delete. Has not been discussed with person who deleted it due to how long ago it occured, and the fact their profile states they have left. The article also features on various other language Wikipedias, eg http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Multiplayer f3llah1n ^(talk) 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Article was deleted via AfD for a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The keep !votes were properly discounted by the closing admin (I especially love the "I'm trying not to rely on saying that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but…"). This article should only be restored if a properly sourced userspace draft can be presented. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has been mentioned in both traditional and online gaming press since the deletion, including nominations for awards, eg http://www.moddb.com/events/2008-mod-of-the-year-awards/features/editors-choice-most-innovative-multiplayer f3llah1n ^(talk) 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you provide links to any other articles about it?--Chaser (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also love the fact that policy clearly states deletion proposals are discussions not votes, yet each one I've been involved in boils down the majority of people having their keep 'votes' 'discounted' just because it suits the admin, thus resulting in the 'majority' of 'votes' (despite it not being a vote) being pro-deletion, and in turn the article gets deleted. f3llah1n ^(talk) 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weighing votes based on how they reflect policy is the essence of "discussions, not votes".--Chaser (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I like the suggestion that wikipedia policy should be changed so the article can be kept. Good close and since this was over 2 years ago, we really need to see decent sourcing provided before we consider restoring this one. And advice to the nom, slagging off the participants of the AFD and the closer is a shortcut to having this closed early. DRV is not a platform to attack other users. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This was deleted nearly two and a half years ago. As the page is create-protected, the best way to proceed would be to present a sourced userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse If no new sources are presented, then this remains the right result. I don't see any solid case for making an exception in established policy about verification in reliable sources.--Chaser (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Design System (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

deleted without understanding the topic, and false reasons and reasoning in the deletion discussion from lack of awareness or knowledge of the topic

Although I do see the article on Human DEsign System had some problems, my point is that wiki does need to have some entry on this topic .

There are many many people in the world today interested in Human Design and nowhere to look for INDEPENDENT assessments of what it actually is.

I agree with some of the criticism, it is not a "system", and today the topic is more often called Human Design, nobody bothers with the three words Human Design System. But there is a further problem, if you define "system" so narrowly that this is not such a thing, what word is there for Human Design. Ah, from that perspective, there is no alternative word, it is loosely a system BECAUSE there is no more suitable word. It is something we never quite had to label before, ok.

SEcondly it does make money for the rights owner. So what. I cannot change that. But I can remind everyone that EMPIRICAL SCIENCE is legally public, and wherever Human Design claims to be empirical, it cannot also claim copyright. If there is also evidence that it is empirical, and I have found that over and over and over for the past 7 years, then, the empirical nature is PUBLIC and not itself subject to license fees. I want the empiricism to be clear, is it is it not, I think it is.

Clearly Human Design is unlike anything that every existed before, and you cannot dismiss it as in this or that box.

Enough words, I say, undelete the original article and contact me with specific problems, if there is no obvious way to correct faults in that original, I can take each challenge one by one and I am motivated to be part of taking HD from private and I have to say dubious, inaccurate, ownership into the pulic domain now.

Please be gentle with any messages to me, I am new here, I am not a wiki geek, I am just concerned primarily on this specific omission from wiki Mikemahalo (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your talk page comment here, you state "The lack of external references will continue..." and your above comment that there is nowhere to look for independant assesments - that means it's unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Please see no original research and wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All the material in wikipedia should be primarily based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia also has some inclusion crtieria most normally "notability". It doesn't matter if this fits in a given box or not, the criteria are more objective that wikipedia editors just deciding, the general notability guide is simply that the rest of the world at large cares enough about it to write about it in a non-trivial manner in independant third party reliable sources, which again if you've no sources this fails. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your changing of your original comments, since I'd already replied it is inappropriate to lose context. If you want to retract parts, then strikethough them, if you want to add additional, then add another signed and dated comment. This helps people see the true flow of the discussion and keeps replies etc. in the correct context of the discussion as they were at the time made. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The participation at AFD was limited, but the argument for deletion was clearly founded in our verifiability and notability policies. If there really are independent sources about this subject, then by all means create a sourced, NPOV draft for consideration, but the deletion of what was brought to AFD was entirely justified. --RL0919 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If I'm reading things right, this was deleted in February 2008 - two years ago - with little fanfare or discussion. Looking at the deleted article, it was a disaster area of synthesis and questionable referencing. Endorse and suggest that the editor making this request create a new version in userspace with good references and have it reviewed by experienced editors to see if there really is a valid, viable article to be written here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this anything to do with Human Design which was deleted more recently? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. Back in 2008, Human Design was a redirect to this article, but the name has since been reused twice for unrelated subjects (a band and a company), both of which were speedy deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The central reason this was deleted was that the article was overly promotional. Not much consideration was given to the subject's notability. Accordingly the article can be restored, but only if a well-sourced userdraft is created. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This was deleted over two years ago, just recreate it if you can overcome the reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• RECREATING STARTED.I very much appreciate the comments here, and have now written a very minimal attempt on my own userspace here - User:Mikemahalo/Human Design. I found it quite a challenge to pick out what is VERIFIABLE and NOTABLE, and decided that basically for now, there is very little to say that satisfies both criteria. Nevertheless, the extraordinary growth of public interest is notable in itself, and verifiable by the sheer number of rival websites springing up across the globe. Harper Collins have published an independent author on Human Design, I think that counts for something. Mikemahalo (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the recreated article now? How come it has disappeared? Why is the topic removed from use now? there are indeed multiple secondary sources, including mainstream publisher Harper Collins http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Pages/SearchResultsTitles.aspx?page=2&sdt=1&tts=human%20design, so what is the problem exactly?--Digital witchdoctor (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]