- 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. 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: Moved the article about the footballer, while the banker is not moved. There is a consensus that neither of the subjects are WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that a disambiguation page should be created instead. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
– The banker, Methodist minister and Labour councillor is certainly currently the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE: see Google. Although he's unlikely to remain the subject of so much attention for long, it seems certain he'll be of greater long-term significance than a former footballer who played only three matches in the Football League. Qwfp (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I agree with your assessment. Being close to the "event" it is difficult to be sure about the Co-op man but the footballer is unlikely to make a comeback. I have found a few other people with this name (a few academics) but none stood out as notable. WP:2DABS might allow a disambiguation page at Paul Flowers if there is no primary topic. Finally, we have User:Paul Flowers who, with his sole edit, has been kind enough to tell us about his achievements. Thincat (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- The dab will need to add another Paul Flowers; in Google Books the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Paul Flowers is neither of the above but Paul Flowers (columnist) of The Commercial Appeal known to William Faulkner etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- There is no clear PRIMARYTOPIC here, just because Paul Flowers (banker) has been in the news for some controversey recently does not make him PRIMARYTOPIC. I therefore only support the move of the footballer article, with the Paul Flowers article turning into a dab. GiantSnowman 12:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support First Move - Strongly Oppose the Second - The first move is productive and make sense. The second.... I would disagree that the banker is the primary topic. As others have said here, a bit of controversy in the papers does not make a primary topic. When its out of the papers are people going to remember his name? Probably not. But that is not to say that the footballer is the primary topic either; it is unlikely would ever be a "primary" between them as both are obscure. I agree with User:GiantSnowman - change Paul Flowers to a disambiguation. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Support both moves. It's pretty clear that Paul Flowers the footballer is not the primary topic here. It's less clear whether Paul Flowers the banker is notable enough that he should be the primary topic, or whether Paul Flowers should be a disambiguation page; but personally, since he's in the news currently, I think it makes sense to put Paul Flowers (banker) under this title. If the news stories don't last very long and his long-term notability is in question, Paul Flowers can always become a disambiguation page instead. Robofish (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
- 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.
