Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Three (tennis)

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 no consensus. There is clear consensus here that the topic of the dominant tennis players in recent men's tennis is likely notable, and also that two articles should not exist simultaneously. Which article should exist is best resolved through a merge request. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three (tennis)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a wp:content fork of Big Four (tennis). There is nothing in this article that is not already covered in the Big Four article. Both concepts could be easily described in one article, this new article is not needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Big Four (tennis) per nom. BD2412 T 05:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article's creator. Did the nominator even do any checking WP:BEFORE? Big Four is much less notable and commonplace than Big Three; in fact, I'd never even heard the former term before stumbling upon that article, whereas Big Three comes up over and over again (almost ad nauseum). The Big Three are all considered worthy candidates for GOAT, unlike Andy Murray. Each of the Big Three has 17 Grand Slam singles titles, more than any other male player, whereas Murray's three doesn't even get him a mention on the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. If anything, Big Four should be up for deletion before Big Three. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Big Three and the Big Four are probably worth an article. However, the articles only really need to be a few sentences long and it would be clearer if they were combined into just one article. Padding them out with meaningless stats is the issue here. Nigej (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This can go two ways - either merge content and redirect to Big Four, or cut off the Big Four article to the time period the Big Four no longer existed. Say from the time Murray got injured. It's a little silly that article is still going forward since there is no Big Four anymore. This article would continue where the Big Four left off. That article is ridiculously huge as it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Big Four (tennis). Surely the Big Four article can be rewritten to cover the Big Three. Both articles are excessively long and some trimming would be in order. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's like the tail wagging the dog. Big Four was briefly(?) in vogue when it appeared that Murray might achieve the same stature as the others, but he didn't. The Big Three, on the other hand, are still dominating men's tennis, without any sign of letup. Big Four is ridiculously long (17K words), but Big Three has only 429 words. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's more like the Big Two. We don't even know if Federer will come back from that knee surgery and his back and knees are rapidly breaking down. It was probably Federer-Nadal through 2010, the Big four from 2011-2015, and the Big Three from 2016-2019, and now back to a Big Two with Djokovic-Nadal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you count up to 2019 as Big Three, than calling 2020 alone Big Two is quite a stretch. Nadal has not won a major title yet in 2020. Moreover a non Big Four member won one of the three 2020 Majors.T v x1 17:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Big Four (tennis)#"Big Three" per nom. There's no clear delineation between the "Big Four" and "Big Three" eras, and it's too early to tell which term will be the more enduring after they've all retired, so we should avoid recentism and instead expand the Big Three section in the Big Four article for now. Somnifuguist (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. The Big Three are unquestionably all-time greats already, even if they all retired today, Murray, not so much, so the former is clearly more enduring. "Big Three tennis" has more than twice as many hits (1.39M) as "Big Four tennis" (0.69M). Also, WP:NOTPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Three are a subset of the Big Four, so this article about their combined achievements is entirely redundant to (i.e. a content fork of) the article on the Big Four's combined achievements. While it is true that 'Big Three' has become prevalent since Murray's injury/Djokovic's comeback (<3 years), 'Big Four' has been in common usage from mid-2008 [1] until present [2] (>12 years). Somnifuguist (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The current Big Three article is a loose copy and paste of some parts of the Big Four article, and is entirely statcruft (see WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT) . A lot of the Big Four article is also just statcruft, but at least a decent amount of that article is prose. No part of the Big Three article is prose. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect Big Four (tennis) to this article. It is high time that we finally make our articles accurately reflect the sources. Yes the Big Four term did indeed exist in sources years ago, but that was for a relativity short period. As the years progressed and performances evolved the sources changed their view and even those that claimed a Big Four admitted that there only ever was a Big Three. That is the true lasting term. The Big Four thesis can be dealt with in a due manner in the Big Three article.T v x1 16:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the evidence is that Big Three is "the true lasting term". Surely it's too early to tell. Anyway the real point is that we only need one article, not two. Nigej (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those who support "delete and redirect". That's just not possible. If you delete a title there is nothing left to be redirected. It's either delete OR redirect, not both.T v x1 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we mean: delete the article by creating a redirect to (a suitably modified) Big Four (tennis). Nigej (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An outcome of 'delete and redirect' would mean delete the article (erasing the history) and recreate it as a redirect. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Big Four (tennis) (which is ultimately equivalent to deleting and redirecting I suppose since this article is quite short). I have no preference under which title they should be merged but I will point out that notability is not temporary, so if the term(s) is/are notable now, they must continue to be notable into the future regardless of whether Federer continues or whatever may happen, otherwise they are not notable topics now. A7V2 (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.