Talk:John Grieve (actor)

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per User:Orlady and others, no decisive evidence that this subject is primary. Close and tough call, but the fact that a reference to a deceased and relatively obscure actor is likely to decrease in relative importance with time is the clincher here. Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Requested move

John Grieve (actor) → John Grieve — We only have two people of this name, there may be consensus that the margin of notability does not need to be much to decide that one is the primary meaning. The actor was one of the leading Scottish actors of his generation, a lot of people will still have heard of him, I think his biography does not do him justice. PatGallacher (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose because the disambiguation page John Grieve belongs there. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don't think that's really a reply. I think you haven't understood the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. PatGallacher (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is a reply but its one that begs the question:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yup. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • More to the point, a quick search of Wikipedia reveals redlinks to at least 3 other people named John Grieve. Because these people already are notable enough to be redlinked here, the redlinks belong in the disambiguation page. That helps to prevent the unfortunate creation of multiple redlinks intending the same person. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. I have searched Google Books and News Archive (both with limiters to avoid false positives) and the results are that the actor has about twice the results as the Victoria Cross recipient, which is not enough for the wide disparity needed for primary topic status. However, somewhat balancing that out, the actor gets significantly more incoming hits --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This may be getting rather complicated. Although creating red links for incoming links on a disambiguation page is not always wrong, the notability of these people remains to be established, being the friend of somebody else does not seem like a good claim to notability. It's a moot point how wide the disparity of notability needs to be to decide that somebody is the primary meaning, but it is the view of some Wikipedians that disambiguation pages with only 2 entries are generally to be avoided, with only 2 people the margin of notability does not need to be very great to decide that one is the primary meaning, see Talk:Harthacnut. PatGallacher (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think red links should be included on dab pages only in the most clear cut cases and I don't think even in clear cut cases that should be used to ignore WP:TWODABS. The chief function of dab pages is to resolve ambiguity between existing articles. However, WP:PT is pretty clear on the disparity requirements for finding a topic to be the primary, does not distinguish between number of topics for its application, and a page with only half the hits is pretty wide of the mark set forth in the language there. The direct question is, which is better for our readers: having one-third of those searching for a particular topic landing at the wrong one and being surprised, or all of the people searching for either of two topics having to click twice? The discussion you cite is a good precedent to draw from but it's far from any large consensus or a direct discussion of the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - based on Fughettaboutit's findings, I would say that this data does suffice to identify the actor as the primary topic. (Redlinks don't matter unless we think there's a real prospect of an article being written.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Fuhghettaboutit. Propaniac (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I came to this discussion from the backlog list at WP:Requested moves to see if I could close it. I looked at the list of people named John Grieve, did some Google searching, and ended up starting an article for John Grieve (police officer). From what I found in my searching, I see no basis for concluding that any one of the various people named "John Grieve" is sufficiently notable to be a WP:Primary topic. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.