Talk:Primitive skills

Untitled

So, then, does this mean that we have set the precedent that Neologism is perfectly acceptable here? James084 13:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• This is an established concept in regular use, it isn't the kind of fan-made neologism which WP:NEO is talking about. Kappa 14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

References

I removed the sole citation used in the article – it appears to be a self-published website for the "Society of Primitive Technology". The website is currently offline, but an archived copy exists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect to Survivalism

I've removed the unverified material (which was all of it) and redirected the page to "Survivalism" as the article most likely to be relevant to the topic. The article has had no more than one self-published source as a reference at any time since this 2009 revision. The various how-to guides published are not reliable sources due to having a commercial interest in promoting the use of the term, and primitive skills appears only in passing in most scholarly papers, either in the context of testing people with dyslexia or else machine learning in robots. In short, there appears to be no reliable sourcing to support the notability of the neologism primitive skills as it's used here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)