Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skill set


 * 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 Redirect to Skill but with the proviso that if a more fully formed and referenced article on the subject can be drafted, it can be revived at this location. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  16:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Skill set

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Maybe this could become something eventually, but I worry that the topic is too broad to ever be fully fleshed out. It might be better to specify on specific skill sets for different types of situations and leave the overarching definition for Wiktionary, but I'm on the fence. South Nashua (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator says that they are on the fence so I'm not seeing a case to answer. The topic is analysed in detail in sources such as this and so it passes WP:SIGCOV.  The matter is then one of ordinary editing not deletion and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete any dictionary definition can be proven to have significant coverage using a Google Books search. This article is just a DICDEF, and more than adequately covered by Wiktionary's article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy to redirect to skill, probably like backgammon set should redirect to backgammon. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely just a dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Skill. It's a reasonable search term, but there's just no meaningful conceptual difference between Skill and Skill set. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Timothy. It is a reasonable search term, but not worthy of its own article. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Now we need to categorise- Category:Human resource management seems a good place to start, and with in that there are three relevant subcategories. If I do get involved further these are directions I would intend to go. I will X-post the list to Article talk space.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Skill per above; a quite reasonable suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A highly noteable concept. Skill sets are clearly distinct from skills, and have their own meta properties. Similar to swarms which have properties you don't find in any of the individuals that compose them.  I understand the noms concern about this being a broad topic, but looking at the article for Swarms I see we have just one, not a collection of different articles for bee swarms, fish swarms etc. It's probably more efficient to have just one article for skillsets, which can later be developed to have sub sections for the skillsets needed in different fields of work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep As a HR concept it is of the highest importance. From a general point of view, youngsters are always being advised to expand their skill set, by employment consultant with out either of them knowing what a skill set is. May be this was not a concept that was familiar to those of us who grew up in a fairer world but if you are an unemployed graduate in a post-truth society, WP is where you go to find out the nuances of what you have been asked to expand. There is one gifted admin on wiki who is waiting at tables because employer fail to understand the skill set he has developed at WP, and there is now only this article he can link to- it need rapidly to be worked up rather than deleted.  Articles start as stubs and then are worked up. Now having expressed my opinion as I was asked to in a banner: quo vadis.
 * Make a lead and make an article
 * Look to a section
 * Definition
 * History
 * Regional differencies
 * Skill set within Wikipedia
 * Skill set of a newbie
 * Skill set of a established editor
 * Skill set of wikipedia specialists
 * Administrators
 * Project coordinators
 * Copy editors
 * Paid wikimedia employees
 * Arbcom
 * Skill sets within sectors
 * Manual labourer
 * Artisans
 * Graduates
 * Postgraduates
 * Postdoctorals
 * Diplomats
 * Civil servants
 * Politicians
 * Conflicts arising from differing skill sets
 * Economic and political implications
 * Conflicts arising from differing skill sets
 * Nice work, but Wikipedia isn't a HOW TO or LinkedIn suggestion box. As for the "Wikipedia specialists" section, delete, navel-gazing, and the "skill sets within sectors" section is nothing but patronising or original research or worse.  Skill set of a graduate?  Ability to serve a burger?  Skill set of a civil servant?  Ability to push paper?  Skill set of a politician?  Ability to lie?  This isn't encyclopedic in any sense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Smile: Skill set of a politician? Ability to lie?- all you need is a reference and you could add that to the article. So did try a little googling - I was overwhelmed by possibilities- the first dozen from notable sources. Can I add  to the subsection? ClemRutter (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This would not be a good fit for merging to the skill article as that is about the concept of skill, and the concepts of different types of skill, all considered individually. This article is about combinations of skills, how they differ in different people, how the sets desirable for different roles differ (and how the expected and actual desirable skill sets differ), and how matches and mismatches between the combinations of desirable and actual skill sets in various situations. As noted, these are fundamental to the field of human resources (and it's very likely there are academic studies on all of this and how such understanding relates to successful businesses, etc). Also a big trout to the nominator for this waste of time and effort - if you aren't sure whether something is suitable for Wikipedia the first step is learning more about the topic, the second step is discussing it on the talk page or with a relevant WikiProject. Articles for deletion only becomes the correct step when you are certain the article should be deleted (the clue is in the name). Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2017 (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.