Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four (music)

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. Daniel Bryant 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Four (music)

Big Four (music) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original research. kingboyk 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete! Definitely OR. I've never even heard of most of these bands, much less the term "big four". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Big Four of Thrash Metal is a widely known term. Rubbish article which I think should be deleted this is, but if someone created a Big Four of Thrash article I'd vote keep. LuciferMorgan 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Patently original research. Who says the respective lists are the "big four" in any given field? Based on my itunes play count, the big four bands are The Aislers Set, Bearsuit, Marine Research and the Television Personalities - can I edit the page to make that the "big four"? The reasoning's no less valid. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I created this article with content from Big Four, which is a disambiguation page, which therefore cannot include content per MOSDAB. Deleting this article will only result in the dab page getting polluted again. It's preferable to do OR patrol in this article than to do dab cleanup in what is already a stable dab page. --maf (talk-cont) 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Mostly fanboy stuff, what isn't can be easily put in the existing disambiguation. Adamravenscroft 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- could keep and trim down to the handful (thrash bands, Seattle grunge bands, Pink Floyd albums) that can have their own articles or mentions in the bands' articles (those entries are the musical "Big Four" mentions I could find citations for, and the Pink Floyd album cite just mentioned that there was a big four, but didn't enumerate them) -- but by the time this list is trimmed, it might just as easily be slurped back into the base Big Four dab. If the artist/album's articles don't describe themselves as one of some big four, there's no need to list them on a dab, IMO. -- JHunterJ 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete trash all the non-notable/OR lines, then the few lines that are left can easily be put back into Big Four. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.130.242 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
• Weak Delete The only thing from this list that is not OR is the Big four of Thrash Metal, even then it's not really notable and is probably better documented else ware. Avador 04:20, 8 May 2007 (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.