Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fab Four of Indian 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fab Four of Indian cricket

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

Pointless article, totally POV, All original research Abeer.ag (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:NPOV, and anyway there is nothing here which cannot be included in one of the individual player articles. Note also the one reference on the page, which is actually an article about them, er, not being so fab after all. Nice irony that the two items in the "other quartets" section are more commonly grouped than these, though. EJBH (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Although the article is unsourced, the term is definitely widely used. However, that doesn't mean that an article is required, this doesn't exactly rank in the same league as The Invincibles. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - ugh, "The above quartet is a group of batsmen who have ruled the world stage for almost one and a half decades"? Most of that time they weren't even #1 in the Test rankings... Kill it: between WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:OR I'm not convinced there's anything really to be salvaged here. AllynJ (talk | contribs)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable sources found by Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's even more the Fab Five, which is just as much an arbitrary grouping. Abeer.ag (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since when has 29 been greater than 115? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sorry, I just looked at the graph and got excited. Abeer.ag (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (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.