Deletion of Personal relationship skills

Comment: I agree with DGG's observation that this should never have gotten out of AfC, but it was not a single point of failure. It also passed a DYK nomination before it was //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_85&diff=519894948&oldid=519155922 reconsidered and ultimately //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Personal_relationship_skills&oldid=519897065 rejected. It ''does'' have a certain beguiling appeal, but if an encyclopedic article can be written for the topic (and I believe one could because there is a literature that addresses it), this is not that article.  What we have here appears to be a sort of "|portal page" rather than an encyclopedic article, i.e., it is a collection of annotated links to other articles. The "See also" sections of some of those articles already serve the navigational function adequately, and the annotations here do not constitute substantive encyclopedic coverage of the topic.  The selection and organization of materials and the substance of the annotations appear to be a product of |original synthesis.  E.g. (1), headings such as "Kindness" and "Cheerfulness" appear to reflect an idiosyncratic or amorphous view of what is meant by a ''skill''. E.g. (2), the article cites a corresponding //en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Intimate_relationship_skills&oldid=1580653 article at Wikiquote, written by some of the same contributors, as an authority in the "History" section; but Wikiquote is not a citable source, and it is not even clear how some of these citations support statements in the article or pertain to the article's topic. (Cf. q:Talk:Intimate relationship skills|discussion at Wikiquote about dealing with amorphous synthesis of material related to the topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:PORTAL||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: an unencylopedic article, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY)

Comment: I have to agree with Ningauble.  In a sense, this might have to be incubated some more, as right now it's so amorphous it might have to be |blown up and started from scratch or |redirected for now. The concept of such an article or "hub" is not bad, but it needs so much editing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:CHEAP)