Talk:Michael Malone

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Malone (basketball) → Michael Malone – Imagine this gets contested, and I think that is worthwhile. But, the basketball coach over the last month has averaged 1683 pageviews daily and over 52,000 total. Its median is 1431 views. Of all the pages with "Michael Malone", the basketball coach accounts for 97.9% of all pageviews. Since 5/4/23, he accounts for 97.2% of all pageviews. This, despite seven other pages. As a result, I do believe the basketball coach should have the base, non-disambiguated named for "Michael Malone". Debartolo2917 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per views as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Even is we look at the last offseason, he averaged ~300 views/day [1] Recently, the next closest page titled "Michael Malone" received 11 views/day.[2]—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Seems clear cut. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Pure recentism. No primary topic by long-term significance. Most people outside the US have no interest in or knowledge of American basketball. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A primary topic doesn't need to be something most people are interested in, or we'd move Basketball to Basketball (sport). Rather, to paraphrase WP:PT1, most interest in "Michael Malone" should specifically be interest in Michael Malone (basketball). SilverLocust 💬 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A primary topic doesn't need to be something most people are interested in, or we'd move Basketball to Basketball (sport). Hardly, since that clearly is the primary topic! As I have said, long-term significance does not favour any of these people. Only pageviews, which is recentism. The fact that there are a lot of American basketball fans out there does not make him the primary topic, otherwise we'd be moving pretty much every person involved in American sports to primary topic status. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Opposing the move is fine but why are you being so prickly about it? The NBA has huge viewership around the world - just not in YOUR little country. Yet here you are insinuating that it is some sort of American bias that drives the notion that the page with by far the most views should be the primary topic Rikster2 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm not doing that at all. I'm merely saying that he is not the primary topic for this common name just because he happens to be currently popular with fans of American basketball. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Necrothesp. There are 14 bulleted entries listed upon the Michael Malone disambiguation page, with little indication that the American basketball coach has worldwide prominence to such a degree that it overwhelms the combined notability of the remaining 13 men. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It might be a more compelling argument if the next Michael Malone didnt average a paltry 10 views/day. —Bagumba (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• From the intial requester. I would like some clarification on why the two opposing opinions are relevant. Pageviews over a long window -- a year or even further -- shows long-term significance and is an actual, numerical, verifiable metric. Saying "no long-term significance" has no basis. And it is not close with the number of page views -- its 97.2%. Why would we wait a decade for the numbers to likely only grow and become more disparate to show "long-term significance" when the basketball coach dominates page views as extensively. Does he have to win another championship? Two? Make the hall of fame? Win Coach of the Year? It makes no sense to say pageviews over a long period is recentism, when it clearly is not. Debartolo2917 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikinav comment Wikinav shows 100% of the outgoing clicks from the dab page going to Michael Malone (basketball).[3]—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – The other subjects are notable in their respective sports/activities. Svartner (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the argument that the other subjects are comparable in notability isn't consistent with the number of pageviews. Regarding recentism, I don't see it as a convincing argument either, as the basketball coach has nearly consistently had at least hundreds of pageviews per day since 2015 (as far as the pageview tool goes), except in a few off-season months. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, statistics show that basketball Michael Malone is the most prominent Michael Malone. 100% of the outgoing dab clicks going to basketball Michael Malone is nothing to sneeze at, nor is 97.2% of pageviews over the course of a year. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]