Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabulous 4


 * 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 as a topic for an independent article about the cricket term. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Fabulous 4

 * – ( View AfD View log )

New article, with a speedy note declined. I'm not convinced that this is notable, certainly not under its current title.

The "term" seems to stem from a single comment by Martin Crowe. Of the six articles cited by the article, neither Fab or Fabulous appears in three of them, and Fabulous is only used in one. Although the term is in some use, I'm not convinced that it is a "popular term", certainly not as "Fabulous Four".

An alternative would be to move the article to Fab Four (cricket). The title Fab Four is, as you might expect, a redirect to a popular 1960s Liverpudlian beat combo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I declined the speedy because it doesn't match the criteria (asserting that it contains notable people and is believable is enough), plus a Google News search for "Fab 4 cricket" brings back mentions of the term in sources such as this. I don't know there's enough in-depth coverage of the term to be able to write an in-depth article. Nevertheless, if there is, I agree it should sit at Fab four (cricket). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Have moved it to Fab Four (cricket) as I agree it is more suitable. As per the credibility of it, at least a billion people who actually watch cricket would confirm that there's such a term, and not even 1% would realise that it was conned by Martin Crowe (RIP). The term is just a pop culture thing in cricket just as Choke artist or Journeyman (football) and contains more than enough evidence to be approved. The only reason why you should delete this is that it hasn't been published by an editor you've heard of. Even previously, the article List of most-viewed Indian videos on YouTube which I created in 2019, was deleted and now someone else has remade it, taking the credit from me, destroying my hours of hardwork.

My article List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters was deleted after being there for three years with 25,000 views every month. For absolutely no reason!! So every one-time Star Wars character could have it's own separate article, but a tv show with hundreds of millions of daily active audience and over 3,000 episodes cannot have a list page???

I just have to say that this is a case of pure Discrimination. And this is the worst platform that even though runs solely from public led information, always INSULTS and DEMEANS its contributors because of some so-called administrators. So...

Off with you Wikipedia

To hell with your approval. Go on delete it!

I am aman goyal (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've reverted a premature move and removal of the afd template. Per Richie333, the title should be Fab four (cricket) ("four" not capitalized) if kept. Seems to be a little coverage of the concept, which predates Crowe's comments, but not enough to build a substantial article. Perhaps there is a suitable article to merge into, but I can't think of one. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Seems to be a passing neologism.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:NEO, plenty of sources using the phrase, and it has been in use for at least ten years, but there don't seem to be any reliable sources describing it. Perhaps a mention in our glossary article, or Wiktionary, is the best place. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources, such as this one, describing this (at least the original cricketing "fab four"). I'm rather surprised to see anyone who follows cricket describing this as a neologism. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NEO, this is just a neologism that doesn't have a lasting impact to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget Fabulous 4 to either Fabulous Four or Fab Four (disambiguation), which are a pair of disambiguation pages with some relevant results (I would be tempted to merge the two dab pages together, since there's some shared entries between them and both are rather short). I have no opinion on Fab four (cricket). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable application of a common phrase. I notice it is also used of the bowling attack of the West Indian cricket team in England in 2020. StAnselm (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note the page has been moved since the start of this discussion. My above !vote is for the current article Fab four (cricket). I think the term is notable (beyond its reference to the Beatles) and we could have an article on the general use of the term. It was also used for four Brisbane Lions Australian rulers football players 20 years ago. StAnselm (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (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.