Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primitive 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to be a neologism of little likely longevity; it's simply a descriptive phrase, in fact. It was put up for deletion by Stifle in the new "deletion review" system, and the tag was removed by Kappa without explanation. When I replaced the tag, asking for an explanation , Kappa reverted me, saying that I couldn't win an edit war... I've therefore opened an AfD, which I suggest all editors should do when they see a "deletion review" tag. Unless it can be shown that this is an encyclopædic topic, it should be deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Kappa took the correct action here, the {{prod}} tag should not be restored. Stifle 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Primitive skills" is a "current buzz term"? Give a point to the author for a humorous entry, at least. CrypticBacon 09:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is simply a descriptive phrase. Not sure I'd call a neologism - I've certainly heard it used for a number of years, but it still shouldn't be here. Kcordina 11:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, likely search term. Kappa 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Term does appear to be in use, and it is not made up in school. Several Google hits, many using this term as described in the article. Incidentally, {{prod}}-tags can be removed for any reason meaning that the deletion is disputed. In that case it should be brough to the old and boring AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As mentioned above, it's merely a descriptive term which can be used in numerous instances. It's not widely recognized as being linked to a particular subject or study. PJM 12:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So next time someone types this in, we should invite them to create a new article for us? Kappa 12:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we have to create articles on every combination of words that people "type in"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not just a combination of words, it's a "descriptive term which can be used in numerous instances". Note that we don't have to create an article for this term, since one already exists. Since it's an established and widely used term, if we delete it, we can expect it to come back again. Kappa 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps when it comes back it will be better than it is today. What's wrong with that?? James084 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kappa and Sjakkalle. It will likely to be searched. --Terence Ong 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's jargon specific to a community, and if anything, it should be in a dictionary. Furthermore, it's pretty easy to figure out what it means without looking it up. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BrianGCrawfordMA. Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa and Sjakkalle. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article all but states it is neologism. James084 02:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my original prod nomination - non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 11:38, 18 February 2006 (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.