Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Age (cricket)


 * 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The result was Keep per article stubification, withdrawn nomination. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Golden Age (cricket)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. The article is unencyclopaedic and out of context with its highly subjective title. There are concerns about possible copyright violation. The contents should properly be added to other articles created by the cricket project. The style, spelling, grammar and presentation of the article fall well below expected standards. It is frankly an embarrassment. See cleanup tags and talk page for further reasons to delete. JamesJJames (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The title isn't subjective, even though it might look that way. Cricket writers and historians have been referring to the period just before WW1 as cricket's Golden Age for a very long time. See for instance the title of a book by the noted cricket historian David Frith: The Golden Age Of Cricket 1890-1914. That said, the structure, style and spelling of the article leave a lot to be desired. If it's not to merit deletion, then it needs a lot of work. JH (talk page) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's unencyclopaedic how exactly? SunCreator (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Nowhere in the article does it say why cricket in this period has been considered a "golden age".  It therefore lacks perspective and the content is out of context with the title.  The content is a disorganised mass of incidents that may have taken place during the period but there is nothing within them to indicate anything special about the period.  For example, the article says that were some very good players around at the time but that is the case in any period.  Most of the content is about mundane incidents that are unsuitable for inclusion on this site; the rest should be written to the appropriate season review article (e.g., 1895 English cricket season).  For an article to be "encyclopaedic", it must have a stated purpose and stay in context. --JamesJJames (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Its a terrible piece and needs mass deletion. The whole page need not be longer than 200-300 words yet is massive and goes into detail on each county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.205.60 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it be limited to 200-300 words? David Frith wrote a book on the topic! -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as lacking proper sources to verify the "golden age" moniker claim. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There was a book written on the topic not to mention reams of writing. The term is not arbitrary nor POV nor something the writer of the article (or the book for that matter) made up one day.  It is the common term for that period in cricket history. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination. The non-member who made the "terrible piece" comment above has taken some positive action by reducing the article to a stub.  I have furthered this process by improving the introduction and the referencing.  I think the nomination should be withdrawn on this basis as the article is now ready for a structured development, the essential thing needed being an analysis of the period and why it should be considered a "golden age".  --JamesJJames (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The issues raised with the article are content issues and can (and have) been improved. The topic has been the subject of many books and articles and is clearly an encyclopedic topic. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Mattingbgn. &mdash;Moondyne click! 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Mattinbgn and Moondyne. Johnlp (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the new version of the article is a big improvement, and merits keeping for the reasons given by Mattinbgn. JH (talk page) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note nominator has withdrawn this AFD nomination. No further !votes are necessary.  D u s t i talk to me 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.