Talk:Big Four of Thrash

message: The article is incomplete. The thrash summaries for Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax are incomplete. Adding insult to injury is the fact that today's featured article Slayer, links to this.
Anyone interested in revamping this one?
Heavynash 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

message: Really, really needs a source for use of the term.  Presumably there must be some article available online that can be linked? --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find anything very definitive at the moment, but I added a movie review that discusses the term a bit, so it least it doesn't seem totally made up. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This article req's a cleanup. Unencyclopedic content abounds. The section on Slayer is just POV fancruft. Each bands 'thrash summary' and infoboxes aren't req'd since all that information is already available in the band's main articles. The entire article after the lead can just be replaced with a 'see also' section. Will start an article overhaul later. 156.34.215.109 10:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of like the idea of this article, but I just don't know how it's possible to avoid enormous overlap with the respective band's articles. The term is for real, but I'm not sure it's enough to sustain an article. Good luck to whoever wants to have a go with it, I'll try to help out if I can. --Bongwarrior 07:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the offer. I always approach the idea of hacking larger bits of content with some trepidation because a bot will trail behind and put it back thinking the edit is blanking. So I am trying to put a "bits n pieces" approach together. I would like to find an article that talks about the subject so I can flesh out the actual text about the subject but I haven't found anything yet. All in due time. 156.34.210.158 11:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon Further digging I have found that this article, in not 1 but 2 slightly altered spellings has been re-directed by admins to the main Thrash metal article. Perhaps this one deserves the same fate. The "big four" is mentioned in the main genre article so this one... like the other 2, really doesn't need to exist. Does it? 156.34.211.13 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in its current form, no. Maybe it can be improved somewhat, we'll see. --Bongwarrior 02:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article needs a re-write 

message: As noted above, this article strongly fails WP:NPOV and WP:V.  Since the basic premise of the article is "here are the 4 best bands in genre y", I don't really see how it can be cleaned up to pass WP:NPOV.  Thrash_metal does mentions the 'Big Four', but it cites no sources for that claim, so we can't really use that as a justification for this page.  I think the article needs to go, although I'm not sure which deletion mechanism it best qualifies for.
-- bfigura (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "big four" mention appears as well in the "big four" article where it has some references.. 3 or 4?. Admin Nufy8 is the last administrator to make this article(or a similar version of it) a re-direct(its been redirected twice apparently) Perhaps nudging Nufy and asking his opinion may help? If it went though Afd before and was elected to be a re-direct... then he would know the answer... and the quickest solution to this crufty piece of work. 156.34.221.221 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV and V issues aside, this is article is entirely unnecessary; it just states which bands are in the Big Four and then proceeds to give a mini-bio of each band. I'm redirecting it to thrash metal. If anyone objects, speak up and we'll discuss it. Nufy8 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose Deletion