Talk:Andrew Fountaine

Requested move 6 December 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: '''No consensus. ''' (non-admin closure)  Vpab15 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

– Despite high amount of pages linking to the article and receiving more views than any other, the daily stats are too small to convince me that this right-wing activist is the primary topic. Furthermore, despite the prose size of the article, I don't think this activist had done anything in his political career and activities that would make him more historically significant than Andrew Fountaine (art collector). He had not won an election in his lifetime... unless I stand corrected? George Ho (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Fountaine → Andrew Fountaine (activist)
 * Andrew Fountaine (disambiguation) → Andrew Fountaine
 * Oppose This Fountaine is notable for what HE did; the other is notable for the art that others did (and I've never heard of him!). 14:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraude (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure this argument makes sense.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Same with Ortizes, Emeraude. What do you think he did that has made this activist more notable than an art collector? George Ho (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Enough to get considrably more page views for a start. An art collector collects art - he doesn't make it. Emeraude (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides page views, describe what this activist did (to make him the primary topic). I would suggest avoiding circular reasoning if I were you. George Ho (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Er..... I didn't raise the fact that he has vastly more page views - the nominator did. As to what he did, read the article or are you really suggesting I cut and paste it here? Emeraude (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even after (re-)reading both articles... and inserting fresher info (possible ancestral connection between the activist and the art collector), my thoughts still stay the same. Nothing the activist had done throughout his life, like military history, founding less successful parties, party leadership, retirement from politics after disillusionment, or even living in an very ancestral home, would make him any more significant than the 18th-century art collector. George Ho (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and Ortizesp. No indication that the English right-winger was a historical figure of sufficiently profound magnitude as to force the dab page's adoption of the qualifier "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the nominator's evidence and massviews], all of which are the indications that the current arrangement is the correct one. The bar is not "I'm not convinced that the current arrangement is right", but "I am convinced that the current arrangement is wrong", and nothing has been argued that the current arrangement is wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. |Andrew_Fountaine|Andrew_Fountaine_(art_collector)|Andrew_Fountaine_(MP) Pageviews indicate this person is the primary topic and that, since the dab page averages zero views per day, almost no one is getting lost. It wouldn't hurt to put both other Andrews directly in the hatnote, though, since there's only two of them. Station1 (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.