Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpersonal skills

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 merge to Social skills. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable "social guide." Tone is inappropriate, article is a "How-To" on having social skills. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge whatever encyclopedic to Social skills . Actually I was about to place "merge" tag onto pages Social skill, interpersonal skills, soft skills, people skills, with heavy cleanup of the content, since all of them are of the same ilk. However I've been waiting for requested move Social skill -> Social skills. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per above.AerobicFox (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)There are at least 3 articles now on almost identical topics:social skills, interpersonal skills, people skills. If we want to prevent wikipedia from looking like a vast swamp of duplications of business motivational articles, then when we see something like this, we need to merge at least some of them and put the best from each in that merge, and attach a cleanup tag to the merge to indicate it's not that great an encyclopedia article.--Rich Peterson198.189.194.129 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (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.