Mistu4u asked a question: What are the reasons that cricket is not included in the Olympics?

The community seems to be split on the constructivity of this question.

Is this question constructive/not constructive and why?


DISCLAIMER:- This is entirely based on my personal opinion.Individuals may or may not agree with my opinion.

Quoting directly the reasons for a question being closed as "Not Constructive":

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

But your answer seems to be totally objective and backed up by proper references and I see mo more answers till now to this question. So it has not given birth to opinions either. Extended discussions have also not been raised.

I personally think vote for being "Not Constructive" should be cast by any community user when he can see several answers have been posted to one single question and each one of them contains speculations, personal opinions and discussions without any proper reference. This answer currently well describes the reason. So the question is not "Not Constructive". The question is no doubt an interesting one. So it will be a pleasure to see if anybody else can come up with another reference.

  • Two types of questions have come up with this similar characteristic, jersey number and team history questions. Given that this question is constructive, do we set the precedent to ask about any sport and why that particular sport is excluded from the Olympics? – user527 Feb 11 '13 at 19:37
  • Personally my current standing is unless a general type of question frequently appears which by definition is not constructive (e.g. list questions or shopping recommendations), we should reserve the close vote as Not Constructive according to individual question's characteristics. I would not generalise reason for exclusion/inclusion of a game in Olympics as Not Constructive unless the game we are talking about is gilli danda.This question we are talking about can seriously come up with some good researches. – Mistu4u Feb 12 '13 at 6:28
  • @edmastermind29, The two questions you have linked to: 1) Jersey number:- IT is too tiny a subject to be discussed upon and it is likely that no definite answer can be found.It is sort of trivia and does not add anything to understanding of sports.**2)Team History:-** I am not convinced it is not a constructive one.The research on history of a team can well be placed as on topic in the site.Like it would be amazing to see if anybody can come up with the history of county cricket in this site.**BUT** again there is no value of history of some random club in sports.that would be TL. – Mistu4u Feb 12 '13 at 7:21
  • @Sancho, Before your comment I have never heard of this sport. This is very unlikely most people have ever heard it (at least here in India). But I hope cricket is not that rare. But again I am not the deciding one. Maybe in rest of the parts of world, it is well known.So let the community decide. – Mistu4u Feb 12 '13 at 16:33
  • @Sancho, Not necessarily from answers;maybe from comments.I would search myself first on the question.If it seems, the sport is not worthy enough to be asked (like the example of "Gulli danda") I would comment first.If the community supports me,I would go forward and cast my close vote. – Mistu4u Feb 12 '13 at 17:17
  • @Sancho, Community makes mistakes and that can be resolved by casting Reopen votes. Meta is the place where this sort of discussions are done (like the current discussion is going on) and if it can be proved to the community that the previous decision was wrong, the decision is reversed. Now it is upto the community again whether they would reopen it or not. I personally thank edmastermind29 for bringing this into meta:) – Mistu4u Feb 12 '13 at 17:22
  • @Sancho, I would first see the question and research on it. then if it seems it is not worthy enough, I would post a comment like I don't think Gulli Danda it a globally known game and that many countries play it, but as I am from USA, I had no idea about this game prior to this question. So I would rather wait to see what the community thinks on it. – Mistu4u Feb 12 '13 at 17:30
  • Then two things may happen. A lot of users can like my comment or comment similar and down-vote the question. Or say it is cricket which is immensely popular in India, several answers would be posted. If I find the answers are objective, clear enough and are backed up by references, I would not probably close it. But if a lot of answers are posted, but neither one of them show these features, rather they show features of a non-constructive answer; I would probably close the questions as not-constructive. – Mistu4u Feb 12 '13 at 17:34
  • @Sancho do you think the question was not constructive? For me what was dissapointing was the reason as to why the question is not constructive not being given. How it will solicit debate is not given. So the reason as to why it is not constructive explained by the moderators to the users seems a bit too harsh. – kartshan Feb 13 '13 at 9:49
  • @kartshan (In general, not for this question in particular) As Sancho says, the community supported to close votes. Hence, if the community feels a question is not constructive, it's not constructive. A reason for lack of constructivity will not always be given as it should be reasonably obvious. (About this question) That said, this meta question is to shed light on what is considered constructive or not. Looks like the discussion preceding my comment is diving into that. – user527 Feb 13 '13 at 17:17
  • These are just considerations to supplement the discussion: Consider these questions: Why is MMA not in the Olympics? Why is american football not in the Olympics? Can these be answered without much speculation? ie) american football isn't considered to be as popular outside the US, MMA is not well known yet – user527 Feb 13 '13 at 17:26
  • @edmastermind29 So any particular person in this site who has the privilege to cast close vote can do it. So a question like 'was cricket ever included in the Olympics and if so why was it removed later ?' be a constructive one rather than 'why is cricket not included in Olympics' – kartshan Feb 13 '13 at 18:12
  • Now I am feeling quite embarassed. Leave the question to its fate. – Mistu4u Feb 13 '13 at 18:25
  • @kartshan Yes. That phrasing is much better in general. I would take it a step further and ask "Cricket was once included in the Olympics. What factors led to Cricket's elimination from Olympic competition?" or something along those lines. – user527 Feb 13 '13 at 19:03