Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Big Four (cricket)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this term has made it into the wider cricketing consciousness, let alone the wider consciousness of life in general. Furthermore, this term does not exclusively refer to these four batsmen, and likely will be used to refer to other groups of players/teams in the future. In fact, only a month ago, an Australian cricket website used the term to refer to their national team's four main bowlers - Pattinson, Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins. The vagueness of this term makes it nonviable as an encyclopedic article. – PeeJay 11:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG as a cohesive subject. The only cited source refers to them as "fab four".- MrX 11:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is another source that refers to them as the "big four", but one source that simply uses the term obviously isn't enough. – PeeJay 11:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a throw-away term created by the media to compare four like-for-like players, but there's no real lasting notability here. There could be, years from now, but that's guesswork. And I've also seen the four include AB de Villiers and not Smith, so there's already confusion for inclusion.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:58, 5 July 2017
 * Keep There are a lot of evidences of this term being used into the cricketing world. Every cricket fan knows about this clique of Root, Smith, Kohli and Williamson. Every cricketer from Bob Willis to Rob Key, every broadcaster has acknowledged them. It's not a throw away term created by the media. Do you people even watch cricket? In the same manner, tennis' Big Four term was coined and now it's a full fledged acknowledged term. You people are the reason that there's no quality Wikipedia article about cricket. And no has ever included AB de Villiers in this clique, ever. Because he's senior to them by 5 years. These 4 started their careers around the same time. Read these references.
 * No one is disputing that this is a term that is currently being used to describe this group of players, but I just googled 'big four cricket' and about half of the links on the front page were to articles about Australia's "big four" quick bowlers and the other half were about Smith, Kohli, Williamson and Root. Then on the second page there was a clip of Steve Smith talking about the Big Four, except he was talking about the Aussie bowlers, rather than the group that he himself is apparently part of. This term is clearly recentist (c.f. "articles created on flimsy, transient merits"), and there's no evidence we'll be talking about this group of players by such a name in years to come. Perhaps create this article after their careers are over. – PeeJay 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the two links you brought above, one calls them "fab" (not "big") and one calls them ... nothing at all. Wikipedia entries need to be verifiable - the definition of that is given in WP:V. Please take the time to read it, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you people want, Big four term in tennis was used when Andy Murray had zero slams and still it was used first in the media and they stuck to it even tennis writers on wikipedia. Your regressive nature is too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JokerDurden (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete pending sources showing that this neologism is actually notable, as defined by WP:V. (And for full disclosure for our enthusiastic newbie, I'm a cricket nut, a longstanding member of WP:CRIC and will be at Lord's tomorrow.) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well mate, you are seniors here in this wikipedia world because I've started editing just a few weeks ago. But it doesn't make you all a better cricket historian than me and I'll also be at MCG for the Ashes.
 * No one's saying anyone's a better cricket historian than anyone else, but you just asked us if any of us actually watch cricket, which we all obviously do. I understand wanting to make an impact when you start editing by trying to fill gaps you see in the encyclopaedia, but this isn't a gap that needs filling yet. – PeeJay 13:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I make no claims to being a cricket historian - I wasn't a very good ancient and medieval historian. Let's hope there's an Ashes series for you to watch. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree with PeeJay but people do talk about these four and Kohli is supervillain for Aussies ever since our last tour to India. And Dweller, everything will be resolved between players and board. Waiting for 5 (aus)-nil(eng) at the ashes. hahaha
 * You're right, people do talk about these four, but they've only started talking about them as a group fairly recently. What happens if one of them gets a career-ending injury tomorrow and never plays again? Would we still talk about them as a group in the same way? Until their careers are over, we can't say whether this group will have a lasting impact on the sport. – PeeJay 14:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I fail to see how an here-today-gone-tomorrow media hype is worthy of an article. It surely fails WP:NOT. Jack &#124; talk page 15:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Needs to stand the test of time to see if it sticks as a neologism. Come back in five years and try it then. Johnlp (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – As most above: maybe if this is still being used in years to come, but it's just a tag with limited use at the moment, and even within that use, not significantly notable. Harrias  talk 22:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments, it's too much of a recentism, and no evidence this will continue to be used in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination. The notability cannot be established.-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 11:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2017 (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.