Talk:Kim Sullivan Hughes

Requested 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. Favonian (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim Sullivan Hughes → Kim Hughes (As the World Turns) – Originally a technical move request by George Ho. I feel this is going to ruffle someone's feathers, so I'm listing it as a request, not a technical. The original rationale: Many sources have referred her as "Kim Hughes" since she has been married to Bob Hughes since 1985. UtherSRG (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose this because a search engine offers 48,400,000 results for "Kim Sullivan Hughes" while "Kim Hughes" only offers 3,500,000 results and leads to other people/figures with the same name. That is 44,900,000 difference. Kim Sullivan Hughes should remain the active article for these reasons and the fact that it generates the use of both names that the character is known by. Casanova88 (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With quotations and the show title, "Kim Hughes" results 21,800 pages; "Kim Sullivan Hughes" results 42,500. Well, Google News have two for "Kim Sullivan Hughes"; "Kim Hughes" was used by 50+ articles. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For Kim Sullivan Hughes while searching for Books, 168 results came through. Using Sullivan still generates more results. Regardless, the names both configure names the character is known by. Casanova88 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With the show title, "Hughes" generates 42 books, "Sullivan Hughes" generates three, and "Sullivan" generates 13. --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, kudos to you for actually looking for sources for once. I've never seen you do that before. If you are successful in having this article moved, then perhaps you will use this as a learning experience to search for sources, improve the article in all forms and not resort to immediate deletion. Don't you agree? Casanova88 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not interested in improving soap opera articles, I was planning to merge Ruth Martin and Joe Martin into Martin family. Searching them is a bitch, but I'm more interested in making a Martin family more like Ferreira family. While I'm not in favor of keeping content, I have to merge to make everybody happy. Right now, I'm more concerned about other articles not related to soaps. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps after this Kim Sullivan Hughes/Kim Hughes article matter is resolved, you take a good clear look at your contributions to this genre and focus on articles and topics where you can offer more valued editing. My point is that you are often disruptive of editing soap opera articles and you have decided that content is not worth keeping. While I appreciate your decision to merge rather than delete as of late, perhaps it is time to focus on other genres you have more interest in. Casanova88 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.