Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all-rounders in games of skill

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. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of all-rounders in games of skill

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of "all-rounders in games" appears to be novel, judging by "all-rounders+in+games"+-wiki&oq="all-rounders+in+games"+-wiki goole results and the sole web reference on the page doesn't even mention the idea of all-rounders. The topic makes sense at a basic level, but it's not one which has a literature, making this impossible to document reliably. SFB 09:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. There's something here, but the title sucks, especially the "all-rounders" part. I disagree that it can't be documented. It's not all that hard to show that people have won major competitions in different games. P.S. Stu Unger was a beast at gin rummy and poker. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of interest only to a fringe --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly synthesis, and little apparent reliable sourcing related to the topic as a whole. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but, I agree with Clarityfiend on basically every point. I think that from the existence of the Mind Sports Olympiad, Pentamind etc. it follows that there is encyclopedic value in compiling a list of people with major titles in more than one major game. I'd place it as similar in importance, and similar in construction, to articles which give a list of players who have swapped from one athletic sporting code to another. But I agree that a more explanatory title is required ("all-rounders" can only be used if the term does have a specific meaning which is unambiguously understood within the mind sports world), and it needs a "this list may not be complete" tag. Aspirex (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inevitably an exercise in original synthesis. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Clearly sourceable. But why _those_ games isn't at all clear. It's arbitrary synth as it stands. Find a source that covers this with a finite list of games and I'll change my mind. Only thing that keeps me from a pure delete is that A) I know some of these people get significant recognition for doing well in two areas (I knew about 2 of them before reading this). Hobit (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.