Talk:George Shelley (singer)

Requested move 5 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is that the other George Shelleys are at least as notable, with particular evidence provided by Andrewa for the biologist's notability. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• George Shelley (singer) → George Shelley
• George Shelley → George Shelley (disambiguation)

– The singer is the only person whose article title is just "George Shelley" and doesn't contain an initial or middle name. It's also common for the other two not to receive a single view some days. [1] Unreal7 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:RECENT and trivial. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support – It is clear after looking at the other "George Shelley" entries that the singer will have the greater long-term significance. So not only is the singer more significant now, he will likely be more significant in the long run. As a result, the cited essay WP:RECENT would seem to favor the move more than it would oppose it, but then again, it is just an essay. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose , per In ictu oculi, WP:RECENT and trivial. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – leave it as disambig page to sort out the three George Shelleys. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - the other George Shelleys haven't been the slightest bit notable in a century... Unreal7 (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature at best. The fact that the other articles don't actually use this name is irrelevant (perhaps it shouldn't be, but our current policy is to consider whether they could have this name, rather than whether they do). It's quite possible that the singer will in time be far more significant than the other two taken together, but it's not clear yet. Andrewa (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Have you even looked at the entries? One is a person who served as mayor for one year (over 140 years ago) and the other studied geology and birds (over 100 years ago). Significant accomplishments (and sources) are lacking in both articles. In fact, one might even question the need for these individuals to have their own article; they could be briefly mentioned in a broader article that covers their field of study instead. There is no evidence they made significant contributions to their field, nor is there any indication they will ever become more significant than the singer, and if by some "monkeys-flying-out-of-my-butt" chance they do, we can always revisit the issue at that time. Common sense is that it's extremely unlikely. Their chance of achieving historical significance has come and gone barring some miraculous discovery. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked at all three articles (and I'm a bit miffed at the question). If you intend to propose those other articles for deletion, fair enough, and I agree that there's not a lot there to lose... but this is of course not the place for such discussions (and I think it's a long shot, they're both useful stubs IMO, but have a go by all means, and then there will be no problem with the move... even deleting one of them, leaving a two-way DAB, might be enough). Disagree that There is no evidence they made significant contributions to their field, but again, AfD is the place for such concerns, not here. nor is there any indication they will ever become more significant than the singer... that's not really what anyone has suggested, nor what anyone needs to prove. The question is, is the singer already the primary topic? And none of your bluster ("monkeys-flying-out-of-my-butt" indeed) establishes that. Or even seems to address the question. Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I did a little more research... [2] indicates to me that your suggestion that perhaps the biologist is non-notable is just plain ridiculous. Have a look at the images if the web hits don't already make that clear to you too (and do follow some of the links... the list doesn't mean much).

Now, how about you doing a little research on the politician? Interested in your evidence.

I'm sure the singer has a great future. But he's going to have to work his way up to the top (if indeed he does make it there) without our help. Once he's there, we report it. Not before. Sorry. Andrewa (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.