Deletion of Major cricket (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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  (and ), but also 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:CRIN||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  and  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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:CRIN)

Comment: the original AfD eventually reached a fairly strong consensus that this was  and , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:OR)

Comment: There is a need for an article like this to discuss and describe an area of cricket which is summarised in  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 {{u|BlackJack}} is unquestionably a fine editor, I believe he is looking in the wrong direction on this occasion because, as {{u|Blue Square Thing}}, {{u|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)