Talk:Rob Delaney (baseball)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Anarchyte in topic Requested move 27 October 2016
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July 2008. The result of the discussion was delete. |
| This article was nominated for deletion review on 05 August 2008. The result of the discussion was restore. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by Gigs (talk · contribs) on 20 June 2012 with the comment: Minor league player, not really notable It was contested by Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) on 20:08, June 20, 2012 with the comment: Played in majors, sources cited |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Normally, after an article has survived a WP:PROD nomination, it should not go through that process again and instead should go to WP:AFD. I believe the second PROD was not in bad faith, but I wanted to list it in the Old Prod Full template again just the same.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Requested move 27 October 2016
edit- 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: Moved. There is consensus to move both pages, although weaker for the 2nd move, it's still apparent. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
– There are only two Rob Delaneys on Wikipedia. One is the guy occupying the undisambiguated name, a marginally notable baseball player who played in just 5 MLB games. The other one, the comedian, is clearly far more notable. Pageviews are clearly in his favor, he gets 96% of them with 656 a day despite having disambiguation. Long-term significance will likely go in his favor as well. It is clear the primary topic here should be swapped. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support first, oppose second Doesn't have to be a primary topic, and not user-friendly for common names + common surnames; Rob is just a short form of Robert. Plus swapping "primary topics" is a bad idea. Move the baseball player and redirect Rob Delaney to Robert Delaney disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Again with the "there doesn't HAVE to be a primary topic" logic, IIO. Please acknowledge that in this instance, there IS one. Unreal7 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- IIO, do you believe any article should be a primary topic? Or is your preferred version of Wikipedia just a bunch of disambiguation pages? Calidum ¤ 05:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I will not accept this kind of personal comment. The above reason for not supporting this move for a WP:RECENT Twitter celebrity is sufficient. I do not need to take any form of personal attacks for expressing a view in line with the both halves of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not a personal attack. Merely frustration at constantly ignoring blatant primary topics for no apparent reason. Unreal7 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ergo, primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not a personal attack. Merely frustration at constantly ignoring blatant primary topics for no apparent reason. Unreal7 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I will not accept this kind of personal comment. The above reason for not supporting this move for a WP:RECENT Twitter celebrity is sufficient. I do not need to take any form of personal attacks for expressing a view in line with the both halves of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support. The comedian gets 30 times the pageviews, despite not being at the basename. Honestly, you'd have to be obtuse (to put it politely) to deny there is a primary topic here. Calidum ¤ 05:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support first, Weak support second: I think if there is a primary topic it's the comedian, but I can see an argument for just moving them both to a disambiguation page and waiting to see if one of them becomes remarkably popular. 656 views / day is not an overwhelming amount and while it seems unlikely that the baseball player will overwhelm the comedian in popularity eventually, I don't see a huge harm in proceeding with caution. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 16:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Very clear primary topic. Station1 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 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.