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 no consensus. With a stern reminder that AfD is not a venue for personal attacks, the sorting out of vendettas and grudges, and other chicanery. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major cricket[edit]

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 Wikipedia, 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/wiki/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/wiki/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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions.

1. Why haven't you advised interested parties about this AfD?
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 | ^{talk page} 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 | ^{talk page} 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 | ^{talk page} 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.(Personal attack removed) "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)[reply]
• 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"[1] [2] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Serious points of order. In view of the fact that an admin has been obliged to remove a personal attack by the nominator and especially as the nominator has voted twice (entry also removed), I think it is fair to point out to all contributors that the nominator's behaviour in respect of the article is an ongoing topic at WP:ANI.

I would draw contributors' attention to statements made above by the nominator. He says of the first two citations that "they simply link to other wikipedia pages that you yourself have edited". This is absolutely untrue and is a deliberate attempt to undermine a reliable source by misleading readers. He goes on to say: ""Its in a book I once read, trust me" is not a valid form of evidence". That is a clear breach of WP:AGF as well as being completely out of line with the terms and conditions of WP:V, WP:RS and everything the site stands for in terms of secondary source verification. The nomination itself is seriously flawed in its total focus upon internet-based sources and its blatant attempt to belittle and dismiss book sources.

I propose that this nomination is closed now in order to be redrawn by one of Blue Square Thing, Aircorn or Aspirex who have all raised valid, constructive and reasoned arguments. As it stands, the current nomination is completely out of order. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think going back and starting again is necessary and I'm sure most people can see past the bluster and the shrillness to the GF which is, of course, behind all contributions (isn't it?). The core of the issue as I see it is that we have, in this article, information which is valid (and referenced) and that is useful to the project as a whole as the background for the decisions about which matches are notable... but that in order to assemble this article it's been thought necessary to do it under a term, "major cricket", that has very little currency or validity. For me therefore the issue is whether there is a place in another article – perhaps Forms of cricket or History of cricket – where this useful information could be merged pretty much wholesale so that it is available for consultation on questions of notability without having to be a standalone article under a doubtful title. I'll personally take some time to decide this and vote one way or the other: and I'm interested in other people's views. Maybe there's an obvious place for a merger; maybe this is the best way to encapsulate this information however awkward the title. Let's continue a debate (and AGF) rather than stopping and starting again. Johnlp (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As the nominator has pointed out, "major cricket" is not a standalone term. The word "major" is just another adjective used to imply the meaning of "important cricket" or "top-flight cricket" i.e., to distinguish professional-level cricket from lower forms of cricket such as club cricket and school cricket. - Dee03 13:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is just another vendetta AfD against BlackJack so I'm voting to keep this article until cooler heads prevail! Also, if one does actually look at the sources there does appear be usage of "major cricket". But then Wikipedia's inconsistency with what rules apply when is staggering. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 04:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no idea what this accusation refers to, and this comment is neither relevant nor constructive to this discussion, and in fact constitutes a borderline personal attack, so I would propose to strike this vote. Py0alb (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be frank, I entirely agree with MurderByDeadcopy and I would strike much of your input to this discussion and the article talk page. For example your woefully misguided statement that non-internet sources should be dismissed as books which someone vaguely remembers reading once upon a time. I see you have been reported to WP:ANI and I would suggest you heed the comments made there. GnGn (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non internet sources are fine, but as I said before, I have copies of several of the ones cited by the article author and they do not contain any reference to the term "major cricket" as a stand-alone term, so they're entirely inadmissible. The article lacks a single valid citation and fails WP:V on multiple counts. There is no logical solution here other than to delete. Py0alb (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Forms of cricket per Blue Square Thing. As per the nomination, I don't think this article is appropriately sourced to support the assertion that "major cricket" is a properly defined term in any sort of common usage. It is a convenient term, but nothing more I fear. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite to alter focus. There is a need for an article like this to discuss and describe an area of cricket which is summarised in WP:NCRIC as a "match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". The title is a matter for discussion but would probably be similar to "Major cricket" anyway. Perhaps "Top-level cricket"? I don't know. My point is that, although BlackJack is unquestionably a fine editor, I believe he is looking in the wrong direction on this occasion because, as Blue Square Thing, Harrias and others are saying, this article is about the terminology and not about what major cricket actually is. The focus must not be a term which, as the article itself says, is unofficial, though it is most certainly a phrase I have heard frequently at matches in England. The article must discuss the difference between the major and minor levels of cricket with reference to the many global competitions which are designated, for want of a better word, "major".

The article is part way towards that goal in the passage about Indian cricket. That piece is sourced from the ACS and their "definition" should be taken very seriously, despite what the nominator wrongly claims to the contrary, as it carries far more weight than any of the online sources cited. I do not agree with the suggestion that Forms of cricket should be adapted to meet the purpose as it has its own precise purpose to describe all the many types of cricket whether they are organised or not. I believe the cricket project has missed a trick here because it needs something that explains the connection between first-class, limited overs and T20 with information of how these "highest level" forms are demonstrated globally. I am not an expert on cricket, though I am a great fan of the game (I attended about twenty "major matches" in England last summer), but I would be happy to attempt or at least commence the re-write. I would begin by removing the first sentence and adapting the second and third sentences to provide a new startpoint. The "Usage" section needs to be retitled and completely rewritten to focus on competitions and top-level matches organised outside competitions, for example tour matches.

May I respectfully suggest that this AfD is put on hold for the time being so that a re-write can commence. I do not believe there is any prohibition on editing the article while an AfD is current? I propose involving members of WP:CRIC including BlackJack himself if he is agreeable, though I notice he is currently taking a break. Closing admin, is that acceptable? Thank you. GnGn (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If such content is necessary, it should be included in Forms of Cricket. There is no place in an encyclopaedia for a term which, as has been established several times now, is one made up by Wikipedia editors for convenience. There is clearly no evidence forthcoming that the phrase "major cricket" exists as a stand-alone term, and as such, it does not warrant its own Wikipedia page. If you have some, bring it forward. Else the only possible course of action is to delete and re-direct. Py0alb (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or Merge. The problem with this article is not its content, which provides useful background to the cricket world's classification of matches and which is duly referenced; it's the title, which indicates a currency for a phrase which really isn't used with any precision or frequency in wider cricket. If the article was renamed as, say, "Status of cricket matches", I suspect we wouldn't see any great difficulty with it. However, rather than re-create as a different standalone article, it is probably better to incorporate it as a section within an existing article, and I think it sits in History of cricket better than in Forms of cricket, since it is essentially about the historiography of cricket and the points at which different forms of the game were considered – for want of a better word – notable, sometimes retrospectively. I think deletion is the worst option: the information that's in this article is essential background for discussion on notability in cricket for matches, teams and individuals, and it should be somewhere within WP for reference. Discussion on WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN in other places has tended to focus on individuals, but I think we need somewhere in our history of cricket to plant the idea that our definitions of notability are rooted in the written history of the game, its matches and teams, where there is a very substantial measure of agreement between authorities from the present-day ACS going back through time to early chroniclers and reports. That's where this article is important: but not under this title. Johnlp (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to have stuff from here in the history article, although I think we'd probably want to think about tidying up the ways in which we talk about terms such as first-class cricket, list A etc... in a range of articles. Fwiw the closest I can come to a term similar to "major" is "official" - the ICC or ECB - I don't remember which off the top of my head - does define that. But it'd be a lousy title for an article. History seems as good a place as any, but then we need to get the other articles saying similar sorts of things as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the content is to be moved then it should be into History of cricket, definitely not into Forms of cricket. GnGn (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any useful info. I like Johnlp's suggestion directly above. However, there is a larger problem here. As I read through this AFD, the issue of offline sources supposedly confirming this term was raised. I finally decided to look into it myself. Our college library doesn't have any of the offline sources, so I finally gave in and bought the Birley book on Kindle. I can unequivocally state that this term never appears in Birley--not on "p. 145" as falsely claimed in the current reference section, or anywhere else. In my view, this is a major issue, that needs dealt with firmly. Whoever placed that reference, lied about it's confirming that certain cricket teams had been referred to as "major cricket teams." As someone who depends greatly in my real world existence on the honesty of researchers and colleagues, my view is that such dissembling should be sanctionable. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think in incorporating it into History of cricket or wherever, we would need to check these things and also to omit any sections that are there apparently to bolster the current title, rather than for the insight that they give into the history of classification of matches. Johnlp (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I will leave such checking (other than on Birley, which I now own) up to others. I shelled out $14 for that book, and I'm unwilling to pay more to access the others. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, and I honestly think that for someone to have either given false citations, or to genuinely believed in good faith that this article was sufficiently cited, there are serious WP:COMPETENCE issues at stake here. Sanctions need to be taken. There is nothing wrong with off-line sources, but it does require us to be able to take the author's honesty at face value Py0alb (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read that reference as saying that Birley directly referred to "major cricket teams"; I read it as saying that on that page Birley provides a reference for the 1894 meeting that finally gave meaning to the term "first-class", which had been in unofficial use before. My copy of Birley (the 2013 paperback edition: I have it in front of me now) certainly has that meeting on that page. I think we should assume GF: if you remove the words "rated as major cricket teams: i.e.," from that sentence, it reads fine and the references are correct and appropriate. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth pointing out that at the top of page 145 of Birley it states "Cricket reporters are on their trial. Their offence is that they have introduced a classification of counties into major and minor, or first-class and second-class." So there is a mention of "major cricket" on that page, but I would agree that the intention of the reference was to source the meeting, rather than the term. Harrias ^talk 08:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically he refers to major counties - as a purely descriptive term - he doesn't use the term "major cricket" at any point in the book (probably because he wrote the book long before the term was invented by Wikipedia editors). "Minor Counties" and "First-Class Counties" exist outside of this website, "Major Counties" never did, and "Second Class Counties" is not really used either. Its not particularly logical, but it is what it is. Py0alb (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second-class counties used to be an exceptionally common term. The term "major cricket" was not "invented by Wikipedia editors", it has been used elsewhere, prior to its usage here, but the point is that that usage is not common and well-defined. Which is why a redirect is a more appropriate close that a straight deletion. Harrias ^talk 09:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden used "Second-Class Counties" as its heading for reports of Minor Counties seasons through to about the Second World War. I don't have the 1894 or 1895 Wisdens to see how they reported the MCC meeting that decided the definitions, but I think there's a report in the 1899 edition, which I do have, but not currently with me, and I'll look at the weekend to see what it says. In the light of what Harrias and I have written about this Birley reference, and in the expectation that there is a consensus emerging that "major cricket" was, for whatever reason, a term that never "took off", I'd like to see the implications of bad faith and falsehoods made by others in this discussion against the main author of this article at least moderated, and at best withdrawn. We're all here to try to improve WP: this article may in terms of its title be a bit misguided, but it is not malicious. Johnlp (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2016 (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.