- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). However, I would like to remark that a mistake was made when the article was moved to a new title. The redlink in the AFD tag should then have been fixed with a redirect to this debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought at first that this was original research. But the user who wrote the article said that he had heard about it somewhere else, although he wasn't sure where or what the concept was usually called. Google gives no hits under the name Virtual Scoring or Relative Scoring, and no-one on WikiProject Cricket seems to have heard of the concept.
In summary, it's probably not original research, but it is uncorroborated and unsourced, and probably misnamed too. Delete, unless someone can find a source, in which case move to the correct name. Stephen Turner 07:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [Vote later changed as a result of the debate, see below. Stephen Turner 09:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)][reply]
- Delete - as per Stephen Turner's research. Creating an article about a concept you've heard about somewhere (but don't know where) and when you're not sure what it's actually called is a recipe for misinformation. CLW 07:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stephen Turner. --Ngb ?!? 08:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - the source is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians and the method has also been called relative scoring. It is definitely used by some cricket statisticians to compare batting records in the past, when pitch conditions dictated low scoring, with more recent records when scores are higher due to beneficial pitch conditions. The article needs to be updated to indicate the source and usage. It is wrong to insist on deletion just because you have never heard of a concept; rather you should employ constructive criticism to help with completion or enhancment of the article. --Jack 10:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not that I haven't heard of the concept: it's that I can't find anyone who's heard of it, nor any evidence of it on Google under either of the names you have given. You need to give a sufficiently precise reference that someone else can look it up. See WP:CITE. Stephen Turner 11:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when does something have to be on Google to be a recognised concept!?!? As for you being unable to find anyone who knows of it, it is not very well known and it has been included on here so that people can learn something about it, which is why most topics are included in encyclopaedias. Surely all that is needed here is to quote the ACS&H as the source and make clear that it is a statistical method used in specific circumstances such that its users are more concerned with it can do rather than what it is called. We seem to be overlooking purpose and usage by imposing pedantry. --Jack 11:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy to keep the article if you can cite a source that I can look up. Stephen Turner 11:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have quoted the source. It is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians via their quarterly journal. You will have to "look up" all their past journals because I do not remember the precise issue; I read the article and adopted the concept. It is not widely used because there are probably only a dozen or so people who are actively interested in comparison of Georgian batsmen with contemporary batsmen: it is a specialised area of study. Because an area is specialised does not mean it is unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia: on the contrary, because it is specialised it should be included to enable people to learn about it. --Jack 11:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when does something have to be on Google to be a recognised concept!?!? As for you being unable to find anyone who knows of it, it is not very well known and it has been included on here so that people can learn something about it, which is why most topics are included in encyclopaedias. Surely all that is needed here is to quote the ACS&H as the source and make clear that it is a statistical method used in specific circumstances such that its users are more concerned with it can do rather than what it is called. We seem to be overlooking purpose and usage by imposing pedantry. --Jack 11:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not that I haven't heard of the concept: it's that I can't find anyone who's heard of it, nor any evidence of it on Google under either of the names you have given. You need to give a sufficiently precise reference that someone else can look it up. See WP:CITE. Stephen Turner 11:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if, and only if, verifiable external references are given and the article name proves to be correct. If said references are given but the official name turns out to be, say, relative scoring, then move the article to that. Delete otherwise; I certainly don't disbelieve Jack, but the assertion of one person - any person - is not enough for an encyclopedia. Loganberry (Talk) 13:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote is now simply Keep and expand. Since my original vote, Jack has added some information to the article about the fact that his source is "the quarterly journal of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians". This goes some way towards reassuring me, and I think it's enough for me now to oppose the article's deletion. I also strongly disagree with the subject's being referred to as "cricketcruft" (see below); I think it's entirely suitable for Wikipedia. However, although we know Jack is a good and trustworthy editor, most readers will never have heard of him (or, indeed, any of us). Therefore I stand by the reasons for my original vote, which was made at a time when no source information at all was given, and I still think that a specific source is highly desirable and its addition to the article should be a high priority. Loganberry (Talk) 22:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per Jack; obvious cricketcruft even if it turns out to be true. / Peter Isotalo 04:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an entirely ridiculous statement. If it turns out to be true, and we can find a proper and verifiable source, then it will be an interesting and informative part of Wikipedia's content -- it is no more 'obvious cricketcruft' than Seijin shiki is 'obvious Japancruft'. People arbitrarily throwing the word 'cruft' around at VfDs really pisses me off. --Ngb ?!? 08:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a completely idiotic statement and really there should be a VfD re use of nonsensical terms like "cruft". Apart from anything else, he says "delete as per Jack": I don't think I voted for "delete", did I? --Jack 11:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per Jack. Alf melmac 08:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I did some asking around myself about this without success, but feel like giving the benefit of doubt. Tintin 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and update as necessary when further research has been done, including identification of the precise issue(s) of The Cricket Statistician (ACS Journal) in which this concept has been discussed. I think you will find that the article(s) is/are many years old by now. As for its usage, I personally know TWO cricket statisticians who use it. I admit that one is BlackJack but there is another chap who also uses the method. I think one of the difficulties with it, as Jack has said somewhere, is that it is a method without any definitely agreed title. I fully expect that if the source article in the ACS journal can be found, its title will not be the title of the method but something along the lines of "How to compare batsmen of different eras". As a result, those who have adopted and used the approach are left to give it their own title and, indeed, the two people I know call it differently: one says virtual scoring and the other says relative scoring. Equally, it could be called comparative scoring or real value scoring or whatever.
- As with all articles on this site, this one is open to enhancement and improvement. I fail to understand how anyone can justify calling for its deletion just because the precise source is momentarily unavailable. Surely by including the article it is possible that someone may read it who can supply the journal date and number; who will then edit the article accordingly??? Or is that too much of a common sense view? --GeorgeWilliams 16:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I get sick and tired of people who "don't think something is a suitable topic". This is an encyclopaedia and its purpose as such is to be a work containing information about every department of human knowledge. I presume cricket statistics is a department of human knowledge and is worthy of being a sub-category of cricket to contain numerous articles about statistical methods and approaches? In that case, if some members of the ACS use a technique to compare batsmen in 1805 with batsmen in 2005, is that method not a legitimate subject for inclusion in the cricket stats category; or is it more important to exercise pedantry because someone has encountered something in an encyclopaedia that he has not heard of before and "cannot find on Google"? I despair. --Jack 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you really still not understood? I actually said "I just don't think it's a suitable topic without some sort of corroboration". The dispute (well, apart from Peter) is not against the subject itself, but against the lack of citations. Of course it's a suitable topic, if, and only if, you can cite a proper source. "I heard about it in a journal once, but you'll have to look up which one," is not a proper source. It is required on Wikipedia that you write from sources, not from memory. Stephen Turner 12:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are splitting hairs. Okay, if the precise source was in a journal some years ago and cannot be readily identified, then the article is merely incomplete pending further research (i.e., to find the precise quarterly journal). Nearly every article on Wikipedia (and every stub) is incomplete; which is why people are invited to come on here and edit them. If I find the precise quarterly journal I will quote it; if someone else finds it, they can edit the article and quote it. The general source of the concept is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians and the concept is used by members of that body, including myself. This discussion is a waste of my time. Indeed, I am beginning to wonder if Wikipedia is a waste of my time. --Jack 13:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Wikipedia is a waste of time. I think people who make pedantic, carping criticisms are a waste of time. Fortunately there aren't that many of them on here. May I suggest that as the article is incomplete it should be recategorised as a stub? By having it on here, there is a possibility that another user just might have the precise source (which I think will be an ACS journal from as long ago as 1980) and will edit the article to supply it? But he won't do that if the article is deleted, will he? What sort of short-sighted, illogical approach is it to delete a perfectly good article just because the precise source is momentarily unavailable? The article quotes the ACS as the general source so surely that is enough to be going with? This deletion topic is absolutely idiotic. --GeorgeWilliams 16:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no mention at all of the ACS when I made my initial vote; it's been added in the last few hours. I've changed my mind about this as a result, but when I voted the first time (yesterday) there was no source information at all, and that was a big stumbling block. Loganberry (Talk) 22:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Recategorisation as a stub is a good idea, George. Thanks for your support. --Jack 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I admit I've never heard about virtual scoring - but hey, isn't one of the things about an encyclopaedia that you do read about things you've never heard of before. Yes, the article is missing a few things - and references is an important thing that it is missing - but so are many other articles. It needs to be expanded, with comments on which statisticians use it, and comments on how relevant it is - but for this to happen the nascent article has to stay. Here we should give Jack the benefit of the doubt - Jack is a good contributor, and based on his very valuable work to WP to date, which I for one have found very informative and which supply information that has not previously been available on the internet, jguk 20:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. GeorgeWilliams's contribution above has swayed me. We now have a journal name (The Cricket Statistician), and confirmation that the method is not unique to Jack. I'm still not happy about the fact that the source is not precise enough to consult, and that the article was written from memory not from sources (I would love to know the answer to Tintin's question), and that it doesn't seem to have a fixed name. But we do have a lot more answers than the first time I asked around, so I think it's just acceptable now. I would, however, like to echo what Loganberry said above: "I still think that a specific source is highly desirable and its addition to the article should be a high priority". Stephen Turner 09:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep according to current policy. It even cites a respectable source (not that that is even necessary to keep an article). If this is deleted, it is in spite of current policy, not because of it. If you think policy should be changed, go ahead and submit it to the community and see if it reaches consensus. ··gracefool |☺ 15:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update Done. The page has been rewritten to make the article more concise and to include the general source. A suitable name has been agreed upon and the article redirected to that name: Comparative performance scoring (cricket). --Jack 12:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MAY WE PLEASE HAVE A FINAL DECISION TO END THIS DISCUSSION WHICH HAS EXHAUSTED ITSELF?
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.