Talk:Jamie Martin (American football)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

--George Ho (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Move?

 * 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: no consensus to move. Closing this discussion is difficult. Regarding the criteria listed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the stats quoted by George Ho don't quite support the football player being "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". As for long-term significance, there is no obvious choice. Personally, I'm surprised that the two-line entry about the soap character gets so much attention, but maybe it expresses the potential for a separate article. Favonian (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

– Jamie Martin (All My Children) is currently a redirect. Therefore, this topic this football player should be primary topic  at default. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC). George Ho (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jamie Martin (American football) → Jamie Martin
 * Jamie Martin → Jamie Martin (disambiguation)
 * Support. Only Jamie Martin that actually has an article (and hence notable enough to have a stand-alone article); clear primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. There is no primary topic and over 102,000,000 Ghits on this search word. ApprenticeFan  work 14:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And what does that prove? Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are lots of Jamie Martins in Google search and there's no primary topic on Google and there's nothing about the All My Children character. ApprenticeFan  work 15:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can say that about just about any name. Plugging a search term in on Google and not finding 10 results all about the same topic doesn't mean the isn't a primary topic. Do you think that many people searching for Jamie Martin on Wikipedia would be looking for anyone but the American football player? Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment; the rationale given is improper. Just because a title is a redirect does not mean that it is not primary.  Powers T 19:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What are examples that a redirect title is primary? Which "rationale": mine or Jenks's? If mine, I can't think any reason that Jamie Martin the football player is not primary. Also, I can't think any reason that the AMC character is more popular than the other. --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama, Danzig, Lansing. Any article that uses the Redirect template.  Powers T 19:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This case is different: You're referring the one-term redirects, and they are too good to be examples for "Jamie Martin". Any other examples other than one-term? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "one-term". Powers T 03:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he means one word. I agree with you that the nominator's rationale isn't correct all the time (though I would guess it is correct in >95% of cases), but that doesn't mean it isn't correct in this particular instance. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. The nominator's rationale appears to be "Because it is a redirect, it cannot be the primary topic", which is patently false.  I'm not clear on how that statement can be true 95% of the time, but not true the other 5%.  Powers T 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I didn't say that at all well. I'll try again: I agree it is false to say "Because it is a redirect, it cannot be the primary topic", but it would be true to say "Because it is a redirect, it is unlikely be the primary topic, especially when the redirect subject is not notable enough to have a stand-alone article". Jenks24 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That a subject does not have a standalone article is not an indication of non-notability. Powers T 20:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there is another equally pertinent issue, namely that "Jamie Martin" is easily confused with "James Martin" of which there are quite a few articles. The most relevant of those would be James Martin (American football), James Martin (footballer) (English footballer), Jim Martin (American football), Jim Martin (Australian footballer), and Jimmy Martin (American football). Green Giant (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on why those are confusing. Powers T 03:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose a redirect to a list does not default as the primary topic. It is actually quite the opposite. If the title is a redirect, it more than likely doesn't meet the notability guidelines. There needs to be significant coverage in [WP:RS|reliable third party sources]] in order for a subject to meet the notability guidelines. If there isn't enough coverage to warrant a separate article, then the subject probably isn't the primary topic. A notable exception is when the redirect redirects to a notable topic under it's common name. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  23:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Were you discussion the fictional character or the football player? by the way, I made corrections. --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

November 2011: 752 hits for football player, 317 hits for dab page, 535 hits for fictional character. --George Ho (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: The question is whether the football player is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name Jamie Martin. Somebody should present page view statistics to back or refute this claim. Favonian (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * February 2012: 530 views for football player, 206 views for dab page, 484 for fictional character.
 * 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.