This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blue Square Thing (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 22 January 2016 (redirect I imagine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:09, 22 January 2016 by Blue Square Thing (talk | contribs) (redirect I imagine)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- 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)