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. As User:Mtking correctly points out, there is a basic requirement that articles be verifiable and meet our notability guidelines. In the absence of reliable sources, the fact that a single paragraph is "still largely valid and useful" is irrelevant; there is no content which passes our most basic standard of inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major cricket

[edit]

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

Essentially due to original research; the term has colloquial usage only. There are several issues with the article including its references to the Cricket Archive database which are now outdated since the database was revised in recent months. The first citation of the Australian site is false, again perhaps because of site update, and the reference is in any case about "quasi-official" status only. Although the historical notes are of interest, the source does not use "major cricket" in an official sense and speaks equally of "great matches" and "important matches": it is clear that the source is studying the evolution of village cricket into county cricket and not describing major cricket as a concept in its own right. The article is entirely superfluous and its import is misleading with the term being taken right out of its strictly colloquial context. Mike^(chat) 07:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the article clearly needs significant updating and revising now that CA no longer uses the term "major" for important matches prior to 1800 and has categorised some matches in the last few decades of the 18th century as first-class, but it seems to me that the lead paragraph in particular is still largely valid and useful. JH (talk page) 09:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the above by JH. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think my gut tells me to disagree slightly with my esteemed WP:CRIC colleagues. I too find the definition "It is more of a colloquial than an official term and it has tended to be used in recent years to equate List A limited overs cricket with first-class cricket" a bit wishy-washy. An encyclopaedic entry for a term which is largely used to sandwich List A and T20 cricket into the top-level of domestic competition just because the four-day stuff is called "first class" and that suggests that a gulf lies between it and the rest of domestic cricket? In the historical sense, it seems a fairly ill-defined quasi-serious way of including or excluding old matches in archaic forms from statistical evaluation. Then again my points are taking issue with the concept itself rather than the Wikipedia article, and that is not valid deletion rationale. If the movement to use this term in world of cricket and cricket history is significant, then the article should reflect that for it would be notable. So I'm gloriously sat on the fence (or the boundary). In either case, the article does need to be revamped because it doesn't make a whole lotta' sense. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JH. Needs revising, but there is still a point to it. Johnlp (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would seem that consensus among cricket project members is that the article should be kept but revised. It would be good to see what non-members think. Nevertheless, I will attempt to revise it myself but I suspect doing so will make it even briefer as it will be difficult to find offline sources. Cricket Archive is no longer a source and even the one source used in the article which still provides relevant information does not refer to "major cricket", though it does use terms like "top-class cricket" and "great (i.e., important) matches". --Mike^(chat) 20:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NEO and WP:OR. This article has worried me for ages - there's no secondary reliable sources which support the term and it appears to have been created as a convenience for Wikipedia or an editor. It is neither official or colloquial terminology. Moondyne (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable term. And per the infallible Dweller's law. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With out reliable secondary sourcing for this term it fails WP:V, so can we have some? else as WP:V is core policy it must be deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Moondyne hit the nail on the head saying it is a convenience article. The only reference I found which even says "major cricket" is actually a list of major events; and, as I said above, the historical site referenced by the writer does not mention the concept in its description of cricket's evolution, a process which belongs in a cricket history. I can't find anything else that would qualify as a citation on Google and I do not recall the term being used in any book or article I have ever read except where "major" might be used purely as an adjective in the same way as "top-class", which is an equally occasional term. I have to say to Mtking that the article in my opinion cannot possibly meet the terms of WP:V. --Mike^(chat) 18:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NEO and WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. Even the sources presented don't use the term. Only "The Cricketeer" seems to use the phrase "Major Cricket". While I have no doubt this is a useful historical term, I'm not seeing sourcing. Can we find some citation of contemporary common usage? As is, it appears to be something only in common usage amongst a very specialized group. BusterD (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. WP:NEO says it all with: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". My italics. I believe this is exactly what the writer had in mind because otherwise the article has little point. Can we please have more views by non-WP:CRIC members? --Mike^(chat) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (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.