Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-skill


 * 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 Delete. Proto   ||    type    09:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

E-skill
This page reads a lot like an ad for something that's not really defined well (ICT; the entry on the disambig page for that is two red links and a poorly-written description). Google search turns up about 650 hits for the query ict "e-skill" -wikipedia and many (most? it's hard to tell) have no relation to this usage. &mdash;LrdChaos 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the disambig page again, this seems to make a little more sense. The page doesn't really provide any context (which, I know, isn't grounds for deletion), but this still seems like a non-notable term/concept (< 650 Ghits for the search string '"e-skill" ict -wikipedia'). &mdash;LrdChaos 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep . I'm hearing this term a lot these days, and it gets a lot of Google hits.  --Allen 04:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: "I'm hearing this term" doesn't say much for its verifiability. Stifle 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just a heuristic I use. I don't know that it's verifiable, but things I hear a lot about, that aren't closely related to my own life or work, are often verifiable.  For me, that's enough to keep the stub around for a few months, in case someone can verify it.  I don't care much about this particular article, but since you commented I wanted to explain my thinking.  (Also, I just noticed that the article has been around for six months already, which does make me feel less strongly about keeping it.) --Allen 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete even if it's a term growing in popularity, it's still a term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fishhead64 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.