Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling all-rounder


 * 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   delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bowling all-rounder

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A dictionary definition of a term. Possible WP:NEOLOGISM with no reliable sources to be found. Tavix (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Dicdef. Also POVish using two people as an example. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  12:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom.-- S R X  20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Adds no value to the cricket project or the encyclopaedia.  The term is a nonsense because an all-rounder is someone who can perform well as both batsman and bowler; and though some all-rounders are arguably stronger as batsmen than as bowlers, and vice-versa, differentiation at this level is pointless.  At best this could be merged into All-rounder but it has nothing to say that the current article could use.   BlackJack | talk page 07:23, 22 August 2008 (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.