Talk:Adam Griffith

Requested move 18 February 2020

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

– There is no primary topic, so a WP:ROBIN should be performed to move the current disambiguation page to "Adam Griffith", with the current "Adam Griffith" page being moved to have a qualifier at the end of "(cricketer)". Utopes (talk / cont) 15:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Adam Griffith → Adam Griffith (cricketer)
 * Adam Griffith (disambiguation) → Adam Griffith
 * Oppose. There is in fact a primary topic here. The cricketer article gets |Adam_Griffith 90% of pageviews. This actually looks more like a WP:TWODABS situation. Delete the dab page, have a hatnote from the cricketer page to the American footballer and Adam Griffiths pages. Dohn joe (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with the claim to delete the disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS, as it may be helpful to include Adam Griffiths on the page as well, making the dab page quite necessary. With that being said, the article on the American football player is relatively new, and hasn't been around for a complete month. And, people searching for the topic of the American football player would not usually be aware that the additional qualifier was necessary in the search, and could very well have gotten to the page about the cricketer by accident. By "primary topic", I could not find any evidence suggesting that one subject was far more famous than the other and would warrant the page without the qualifier. However, based on what you have shown with the pageviews, I am more inclined to believe that the cricketer is the primary topic. I just wouldn't be very convinced from that argument alone, because people search for names without qualifiers before they search for names with them. (Yet, 31 views a day on average for the cricketer is far more than the 5 a day for the American footballer. If every single person searching for the footballer searched for the cricketer first, that would only be 10, which still is far less than 26.) I will keep this discussion up for the sake that 31 views a day is still a small sample size, and leaves room for more input into the discussion, although I agree that the cricketer is probably the primary topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. If there's no primary topic, how else do we decide who gets the basename? Doug Mehus T · C  17:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dohn joe. Just needs a hatnote.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose clear primary topic. The American footballer is a college only athlete who barely meets any notability guidance anyway - it's fairly dubious whether the article would survive AfD, at which point we simply end up moving the move back again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first-class cricketer is the clear primary topic over the college football player. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. It appears that I am incorrect, and that consensus agrees that the cricketer is the primary topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:21, 20 February 2020 (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.

Disruptive editing
This article is part of a series of articles subject to disruption from the same IP editing, primarily, it seems, aimed at reverting an of my edits on Australian cricketers. The height they keep on adding 190cm is wrong - per the source cited in the ib. In this case they have also kept on adding Bowker back as his playing role - suggesting a purely disruptive agenda. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)