Deletion of Big Three (tennis)

Comment: The current Big Three article is a loose copy and paste of some parts of the Big Four article, and is entirely statcruft (see  and ) . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS||WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: as the article's creator. Did the nominator even do any checking ? 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: 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 ecentism|recentism and instead expand the Big Three section in the Big Four article for now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY)