Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cycling

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Cycling. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Cycling|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Cycling. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cycling/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling.

Cycling

Peace Trail (Wisconsin)

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

Not notable. Sources cited are the "rock trail coalition" (a local volunteer group) and a database listing. WP:BEFORE turns up a number of murders along the trail at various times, but nothing conferring notability. — Moriwen (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article was recently created and I'm intending to expand it (I've been busy with college-related stuff lately and haven't been on Wikipedia as much) Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Janesville,_Wisconsin#Parks_and_recreation. Not seeing this place as notable. The arresting location source seems out of place for articles about general locations. WP:COAT. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and draftify Article can be incubated in draft space as an ATD. मल्ल (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On 12 May, CyberTheTiger was intending to expand this stub. Since then, CyberTheTiger's list of contributions show that they've found the time to make other contributions to Wikipedia; perhaps they could hurry to improve Peace Trail (Wisconsin) (if it is indeed improvable). -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four (cycling)

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

Some sources will speak of a big 6, others of a big 3: this is arbitrary and very fleeting. Unthinkable to many to suggest that Matthieu van der Poel is not part of the biggest n riders at the moment. A few years ago there was an entirely different top few riders, in 5 years these guys won't be winning any more. Nothing of lasting relevance: this is a no more than a questionable snapshot of standings in the sport right now. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there are probably one-off cases of sources using "Big N" to discuss random groups of riders, but considering there are multiple independent sources (e.g. [1] [2]) that define the term (not just mentioning it in passing), there are articles that discuss inclusion in the group (Is Remco Evenepoel Part of Pro Cycling’s ‘Big Four’?), and sources that refer to coverage of the group ([3] references "the much-talked about 'Big Four'"), I think this rises beyond an "arbitrary" grouping.

There has been usage of the term for this specific group of riders for nearly a year and a half (since December 2023), and frequent usage by many different organizations since the 2024 Tour de France, which I feel is more than "very fleeting". It would be a different conversation if I had created this article immediately after the 2024 Tour, but considering usage has continued and frequently appears in articles and previews for 2025 events (for example, these two previews for the 2025 Giro d'Italia starting this weekend both mention the Big Four: [4] [5]).

Mathieu van der Poel is not a GC contender for stage races, which is likely why he is not included in this grouping, which the article (and quoted sources) make clear is about success in stage races and Grand Tours, not a general group of "top riders" Verylongandmemorable (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already commented but just wanted to add: I think the argument that "in 5 years these guys won't be winning any more" conflicts with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Whether or not these riders are successful in the future, the term is widely used currently and has been defined since 2023. Assuming that it will be forgotten is not a prediction we are able to confidently make (and IMO is a bold prediction considering 3 of the 4 riders are 28 years old or younger) Verylongandmemorable (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources are included in the article, specifically referring to the term Big Four.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Please provide sources to support the claims of Big 6, Big 3, et cetera. Flibirigit (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above, there are multiple independent reliable sources which reference "Big Four" in cycling, and no sources have been provided to the contrary. Flibirigit (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Big 6: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and many more [19]

Big 5: Not as common, but drop in form of Wout van Aert (one of the six) will probably make it more common in the future [20]

Big 3: [21], [22]

Previous big four: [23], [24]
Phrase is incredibly flexible and transient: a journalistic device but not a meaningful and lasting concept. Kevin McE (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the additional sources to consider. However, there's a significant difference in coverage between the "Big N" examples you've provided, and usage of "Big Four" to refer to the grouping of Pogacar, Vingegaard, Evenepoel, and Roglic. It isn't just used within cycling media, but in mainstream, highly reliable sources, for example:
New York Times (via The Athletic): "INEOS Grenadiers have none of the sport’s big four on their books — Tadej Pogacar, Jonas Vingegaard, Remco Evenepoel and Primoz Roglic — who are currently the only men realistically able to win the Tour de France."

The Independent: "And with three of the so-called ‘Big Four’ absent from the race, the door appears wide open for Roglic to regain the crown he won two years ago ... It’s hard to look past Roglic taking home the pink jersey given he’s the only member of the so-called ‘Big Four’ who’ll ride in Italy."

The Guardian: "Pogacar, one of cycling’s “big four” stage race riders – Jonas Vingegaard, Remco Evenepoel and Primoz Roglic are the other three"
Also, I'm a bit unclear on why the existence of a "Big Six" of cycling or "Big Three of the Classics" would negate the notability of this specific "Big Four" as an encyclopedic topic. The sources referenced in this discussion and in the article clearly delineate this quartet and their domain (stage races such as Grand Tours). As an analogy, if in men's tennis there was a future "Big Two" or "Big Six" that received significant coverage, would that erase the notability of the Big Three (tennis)? It could be worth noting in the article that a previous quartet of riders was referred to as the Big Four, but the articles you have sent are from 2015, so confusion with the current, widely discussed grouping of Pogacar, Vingegaard, Evenepoel, and Roglic is unlikely. The current "Big Four" has seen consistent definition and coverage for the last year and a half. Verylongandmemorable (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of mentioning the Froome/Quintana/Contador/Nibali top 4 is to give evidence that this is just a temporary grouping, as there have been in the past and will be in the future.

In the tennis example, there might be grounds for saying that they are historically all historically great players (I don't really follow that sport): but by what grounds are Vingegaard and Evenepoel being positioned as historical greats in relation to grand tours?

I acknowledge that it is a phrase used by journalists, but that does not mean that it is a concept of any durability or lasting significance. In the time I watched soccer there have been numerous different permutations described as the big 4 of English clubs: Everton used to be among them, Man City certainly weren't. Lazy journalistic phrases describing a short-lived status quo make very poor justification for encyclopaedic entries. Kevin McE (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling Proposed deletions

Deletion Review