Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Current Fast Bowlers


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Current Fast Bowlers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The notability and scope of this list are ill-defined, and I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Harrias talk 15:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: classic example of WP:LISTCRUFT No. 11, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Aspirex (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Undefined and potentially limitless; valueless, too. Johnlp (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments. There seems to be no fixed criterion for inclusion. Moreover, different sources have different definitions of "fast". 117.192.171.221 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per above comments. There is no value in allowing Wikipedia users to search for any particular type of bowler, they are all pretty much interchangeable. Also "fast" is a fuzzy concept, like tall, or old. Do we find Wikipedia articles describing people as fast bowlers, with a reference? Of course not. Also nobody could possible think of a way to exclude non-notable bowlers from such a list. Furthermore no reliable sources cover fast bowlers as a group. Siuenti (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Fast" is undefinable. I suppose a list of the fastest measured 10 or whatever bowlers would be possible, but that would be generally regarded as fan cruft rather than an encyclopedic topic by many. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. As mentioned above, "fast" isn't even well-defined, and it could be argued that many people on this list aren't fast, but medium-fast, and similarly that other people should be on there. Pointless list. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, undefined scope. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (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.