Talk:Scott Turner (politician)#Requested move 5 February 2025

: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. (non-admin closure) Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 12:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

----

:Scott Turner (politician) → {{no redirect|Scott Turner}} – This Scott Turner is clearly the primary topic given [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2019-01&end=2025-01&pages=Scott_Turner_(politician) elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 09:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Scott Turner (American football) could have been argued as the primary topic until Scott Turner (politician)'s nomination as HUD secretary. It's yet to be seen if this increased view count persists now that he has been confirmed. Feel like this could be WP:RECENTISM. Michaelwallace22 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The politician is not significantly more notable than the football coach. Let's distinguish both. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Cabinet member is more noteworthy than an athlete or coachTomrtn (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, as there are many articles for people sharing this common combination of a given name and surname, and HUD is generally one of the lower-profile cabinet positions. BD2412 T 01:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support: Same reason as Tomrtn AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support He is the most notable Scott Turner as a member of the presidential line of succession. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. It's worth noting that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lays out two major factors commonly considered in determining a primary topic: In addition to looking at long-term significance and notability, "[a] topic [can be] primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." That's not to say that primary topics should be changed constantly, based on a single day, week, or even month's headlines, but, even if Turner the HHS secretary's page views level out, I don't think it's remotely a stretch to predict that far more users will be looking for information on the incumbent high-ranking U.S. government official than on the mid-level coach of a professional sports team. Obviously, Wikipedia's not static: if the HHS secretary leaves office and/or the coach gets offered a more prestigious job, it's worth re-assessing things, but, for the foreseeable future, moving is the obvious choice. Rockhead126 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :That presumes WP:CRYSTAL which we do not have the benefit of. Therefore we must go off of current and historical, not projective theories about what might be. When we look back prior to the most recent election cycle (eg RECENTISM) we must consider that the football player was 4x more popular by pageviews[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-10&end=2024-09&pages=Scott_Turner_(politician)|Scott_Turner_(American_football)]. So it takes more than the jump in popularity due to an election cycle to garner PTOPIC. Its just like when an book author or musician dies, there is often a HUGE spike in traffic, but vary rarely does it sustain for long, so its too soon to tell if this is long standing, or just a blip. TiggerJay (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:RECENTISM at its purest. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Comment Scott Turner (politician) → Scott Turner (HUD official) Executive20000 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is only because of recent events and per BD2412. cookie monster 755 13:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – No primary topic at this time, or for the foreseeable future. Drdpw (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support – Long term and current most notable Scott Turner ZebulonMorn (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :What "long term" are you talking about? For the period of Oct 2020 to Sept 2024 the football player was 4x more viewed[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-10&end=2024-09&pages=Scott_Turner_(politician)|Scott_Turner_(American_football)]. Recent history does support greater page views, but that is exactly what RECENTISM is designed to address. TiggerJay (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons provided above, this is classic RECINTISM at work here, and the football player was 4x more popular (long term, 2020 to 2024) until this most recent election cycle. We do not have the benefit for WP:CRYSTAL so this is either simply RECINTISM, or at best, TOOSOON. TiggerJay (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose nomination focuses solely on page views and not long-term significance, which we are also supposed to take into account. The idea of a relatively minor cabinet secretary who's only been in office for a few months having primary precedence is a little ridiculous, especially since there are several other Scott Turners on Wikipedia. The recent spike in the politician's page views is related only to his entrance into the cabinet and the election. If the politician does get sustained primary topic level page views of more than just a few months, or perhaps gets a higher position if there is a reshuffle, this nomination can obviously be revisited. Billclinton1996 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)