| Revision as of 23:19, 22 January 2016 editAspirex (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,692 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:53, 22 January 2016 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,152 edits change nom "vote" to comment, remove personal attack, remove tag as no longer neededNext edit → | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| :I would suggest a redirect to ] in the first instance. There are, however, such a mess of articles similar to this in the cricket project that it would probably be beneficial for someone with time and patience to attempt to rationalise them. ] (]) 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC) | :I would suggest a redirect to ] in the first instance. There are, however, such a mess of articles similar to this in the cricket project that it would probably be beneficial for someone with time and patience to attempt to rationalise them. ] (]) 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::], could you please take the "mess of articles similar to this in the cricket project" to WT:CRIC and give us a list, or at least some of the main examples, so that we can consider what should be done? Thanks. <b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC) | ::], could you please take the "mess of articles similar to this in the cricket project" to WT:CRIC and give us a list, or at least some of the main examples, so that we can consider what should be done? Thanks. <b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | *'''Comment'''. re-direct to forms of cricket as Blue Square Thing suggests. Internal only: ie they simply link to other wikipedia pages that you yourself have edited. I did mention source 8 - there is no link so there is really nothing to comment on. "Its in a book I once read, trust me" is not a valid form of evidence. "First-class cricket" is an official term with a specific meaning. "Major cricket" is simply a common adjective + a common noun, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. ] (]) 21:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Strong Delete''' with re-direct to forms of cricket as Blue Square Thing suggests. There doesn't seem to be anyone here other than the author who thinks this is anything other than a made-up term (presumably by the author himself) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| *'''Comment''' ] requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The ones I can access use the term "major" as a simple adjective, not as a common term used to describe a distinct form of cricket. It could easily be replace with "important" The article even starts off saying "Major cricket is a term with no official definition in cricket". As far as I can tell it is used here as a term of convenience to provide notability to early cricket games not covered by ]. The notability of this definition seems to rely on the ]( use of it. Unfortunately their sources that apparently use it are not readily available. In any case I am not sure they alone are significant enough to confer notability to this term if no one else (apart form us) has picked up on it. The use of "major" is not even in the titles which calls into question the significant part of WP:GNG. Leaning delete or redirect unless further evidence can be provided that this is a common term to describe distinct forms of cricket. ] ] 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' ] requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The ones I can access use the term "major" as a simple adjective, not as a common term used to describe a distinct form of cricket. It could easily be replace with "important" The article even starts off saying "Major cricket is a term with no official definition in cricket". As far as I can tell it is used here as a term of convenience to provide notability to early cricket games not covered by ]. The notability of this definition seems to rely on the ]( use of it. Unfortunately their sources that apparently use it are not readily available. In any case I am not sure they alone are significant enough to confer notability to this term if no one else (apart form us) has picked up on it. The use of "major" is not even in the titles which calls into question the significant part of WP:GNG. Leaning delete or redirect unless further evidence can be provided that this is a common term to describe distinct forms of cricket. ] ] 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:53, 22 January 2016
Major cricket
AfDs for this article:- Major cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was previous deleted here, as there is no evidence that the term actually exists outside of Misplaced Pages, rather the claim is made that it is a term invented by editors for their personal convenience. It is undoubtedly OR. This was the clear consensus at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket
Discussion here reveals that a significant proportion of editors are aware that the term is "it seems to solve the problem of there being no universal term by "inventing a term that has never really been used or reliably fixed in meaning" and are uncomfortable with it being referenced in cricket articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Discussion_re_NCRIC_and_CRIN
Since then the supporting author has added several citations, which I will now discuss:
1 and 2 are internal citations only.
3 is not a link, and could say anything: I own a copy of Birley and could not find any use of the term "major cricket" in it at all.
4 does not load
5 loads, but a search of the page reveals no usage of the word "major".
6, 7, and 8 contain no links.
9 does not load
10 refers to "major teams" but not "major cricket". In this case, "major" is of course a perfectly normal adjective that is synonymous with significant, prominent, or important. It is not a stand alone term.
11. is the same as 10. again "major teams" is simply a everyday grammatical construction, not a stand-alone term
12. refers to "major matches" but not major cricket. Again "major" in this sense is synonymous with significant.
13. also refers to major matches
14. refers to major cricket events. Here the major describes the events, not the cricket.
15. refers to major cricket tournaments, Here the word major refers to the tournament, not the cricket.
In summary, none of the citations provide evidence that supports the claim that "major cricket" is a standalone term with a specific meaning. In the majority of cases, the word "cricket" is either not even present, or the common, everyday adjective "major" is describing something else entirely - eg a team, a match or a tournament.
A google of the phrase "major cricket" reveals 63,800 results. In comparison "important cricket" reveals "23,000, "best cricket" reveals 421,000 results and "top cricket" reveals 180,000.
Py0alb (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Questions.
- Why haven't you advised interested parties about this AfD?
- Please explain what you mean in saying that citations 1 and 2 are "internal only". This statement makes no sense and is misleading. The citations are taken from guides published by the ACS which is a substantial source (same applies to citation 8).
- Your comments about citations 3–5 are completely out of context. Those citations are there to support the information contained in the respective sentences, which are not about the term. They provide historical background. Your assertion re these three citations is therefore deliberately misleading.
- I notice you have not made any comment about citation 8 (used twice) and perhaps you would like to do so? This citation alone proves SNG via WP:NCRIC. The rest enable compliance with WP:GNG.
- Re your later points, we are not talking about "significant cricket", but about "major cricket". That is like saying that "first-class" is synonymous with "top-class". Both are terms in use, one officially, one unofficially. Synonyms are irrelevant.
Google results are inadmissible evidence. It is citations that count with the ACS references taking priority. Nothing "internal" about those at all. Jack | 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The original version of this article was a stub without citations that was correctly deleted in 2011. Since then, the term has acquired wider usage and is often heard in discussions. A wider range of sources is now available and this article meets not only WP:NCRIC (and WP:CRIN), but also WP:GNG. Jack | 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NCRIC just mentions biographies so not sure how that applies and I don't see anything in WP:CRIN that this article meets (not sure that section has much relevance in a deletion discussions anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree that none of the sources I've looked at uses the term "Major cricket" as an independent term. I made the same point immediately the article was recreated and raised the issue at the relevant wikiproject and received no comment about the use of the term. I tend to think that this is a made up term that's been used as a matter of convenience. In particular, the sources citing the "Major matches group" are entirely misleading - these matches refer only to international matches for example (which are coordinated above the national governing bodies) whereas the term, as we have it defined, is used to refer to any First Class match (or match which has later been given first class status), List A or T20 match. Quite clearly these sources do not define "major" in the same way we have it defined here. I note this specifically because these are "official" sources rather than, for example, media sources.
- I would suggest a redirect to Forms of cricket in the first instance. There are, however, such a mess of articles similar to this in the cricket project that it would probably be beneficial for someone with time and patience to attempt to rationalise them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Blue Square Thing, could you please take the "mess of articles similar to this in the cricket project" to WT:CRIC and give us a list, or at least some of the main examples, so that we can consider what should be done? Thanks. Jack | 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. re-direct to forms of cricket as Blue Square Thing suggests. Internal only: ie they simply link to other wikipedia pages that you yourself have edited. I did mention source 8 - there is no link so there is really nothing to comment on. "Its in a book I once read, trust me" is not a valid form of evidence. "First-class cricket" is an official term with a specific meaning. "Major cricket" is simply a common adjective + a common noun, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. Py0alb (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The ones I can access use the term "major" as a simple adjective, not as a common term used to describe a distinct form of cricket. It could easily be replace with "important" The article even starts off saying "Major cricket is a term with no official definition in cricket". As far as I can tell it is used here as a term of convenience to provide notability to early cricket games not covered by first-class cricket. The notability of this definition seems to rely on the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians(home page use of it. Unfortunately their sources that apparently use it are not readily available. In any case I am not sure they alone are significant enough to confer notability to this term if no one else (apart form us) has picked up on it. The use of "major" is not even in the titles which calls into question the significant part of WP:GNG. Leaning delete or redirect unless further evidence can be provided that this is a common term to describe distinct forms of cricket. AIRcorn (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – the original AfD eventually reached a fairly strong consensus that this was WP:NEO and WP:OR, and I don't believe anything has changed. There is definitely no reference anywhere to satisfy me that "major cricket" has been adopted in the four years since the previous AfD as a term with either a formal or a widely used conventional meaning encompassing the top non-international levels of each of the three forms of cricket. All of the content in this article which deals with the historical status of first-class cricket is already in first-class cricket, and sits much more appropriately there. Maybe redirect to forms of cricket. Aspirex (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)