Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primitive skills (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. Ineligible for soft deletion due to prior AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive skills[edit]

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

There appears to be no significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent, published sources. There are various how-to guides published, which would not seem to be reliable sources due to having a commercial interest in promoting the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term "primitive skills" as used in the article appears to be a WP:Neologism related to the use of ~~prehistoric technology~~ pre-industrial technology. The term is not used in this way in most scholarly papers, which instead use the term only in passing, and either in the context of testing people with dyslexia or else machine learning in robots. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 19:05, 02:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in current unreferenced state. Have to agree - in the absence of references showing the widespread use of the term in the manner proposed here, this is a neologism. The very first stub of this article [1] defined it as a "current buzz term used by naturists and 'back-to-landers'", without backing this up. Pinging Seraharold as the last editor to add substantial material - what is your basis for these additions? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:02, 5 January 2017 (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.