Talk:Stacey Smith

{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes

|current1=Stacey Smith|new1=Stacey Smith (figure skater)|current2=Stacey Smith (disambiguation)|new2=Stacey Smith|}}

• :Stacey Smith → {{no redirect|Stacey Smith (figure skater)}}
• :Stacey Smith (disambiguation) → {{no redirect|Stacey Smith}}

– no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=wikilinks&range=latest-90&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Smith_(disambiguation)] Joeykai (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 00:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Opposed: None of the other candidate articles seem to match this common name or demonstrate sufficient notability and in-depth coverage. Which one(s) do you think would justify this renaming? All but two of them are red links on the disabiguation page, and the two blue ones are not named "Stacey Smith". The only topic other than this one that shows more than 1 view per day in the massviews list has a question mark in their name and in the corresponding article title, and nearly all of the cited sources include the question mark when referring to them. That article is only about half as popular with readers{{snd}} most of whom probably include the question mark when looking for the subject. The other blue link has the given name "Stacey-Ann", not "Stacey", and is referred to as "Stacey-Ann" in both of the sources that are cited in the article that mention her. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Stacey Smith? gets more views. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I just noticed that article has only existed in mainspace for a month. It seems difficult to make valid judgments about pageview statistics under that condition. Also, I do not find any cited sources that refer to that subject as "Stacey Smith". All but one of the non-self-published sources in that article refer to the person by a completely different name that isn't mentioned in the article at all. Moreover, the person clearly has a question mark as part of their self-described name, which makes their name different from "Stacey Smith". Clearly, not all of the readership interest can be counted as reader interest in "Stacey Smith". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• :: The other name is a MOS:DEADNAME so is properly left out. You would have a point if this were trying to promote the mathematician to primary topic, but she could still reasonably be referred to as "Stacey Smith" and I don't see the figure skater as having sufficient dominance over the mathematician to retain primacy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::MOS:DEADNAME does not say that Stacey Smith?'s former name should be left out. On the contrary, it says her former name should be included in the opening sentence, since she was notable as the author of many published works using that name that have received in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Nearly all of the cited sources refer to the former name, and the article would be rather confusing if that name is left out. The Elliot Page example in MOS:DEADNAME is a good one. Another analogous author example is Daniel M. Lavery. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::: And also Stacy Smith shouldn't be discounted entirely, which makes the primary case even weaker. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::: I hadn't noticed Stacy Smith (without the 'e'). You have a point there, but it's another non-exact match. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:Note: WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, WikiProject Women's sport/Figure skating task force, WikiProject Women's sport, WikiProject Olympics, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Figure Skating have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a cut-and-dried case of recentism. Surely, someone analysing Bieber Fever and outbreaks of zombies (which is very relevant in the modern world) will have more media attention and hence more views on Wikipedia than a figure skater. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  Moreover, that Stacey Smith? has a question mark in her name, she doesn't even have the same name as the figure skater. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• : The alternative to usage in the primary topic criteria is "long-term significance". Someone who was significant for a short period in the past is no more qualified to be primary topic than someone who is significant for a short period in the present. We don't have a "anti-recentism" rule as you propose here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This is open-and-shut, the page views show a clear absence of primary topic, I'm surprised there is any opposition to it at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Except that none of those other people are named ":Stacey Smith" (with an 'e', without '-Anne', without a question mark). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, * Pppery * and Amakuru. There are seven entries listed upon the Stacey Smith (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the four-sentence stub delineating the 1970s–1980s ice dancer represents a figure of such renown as to overwhelm the combined notability of the remaining six entries. Also, as a tangentially-related matter, the three-entry Stacy Smith (disambiguation) page should be merged into the seven-entry Stacey Smith/Stacey Smith (disambiguation) page in the same manner that Phillip Smith is merged into the Philip Smith dab page or Catherine Smith is merged into the Katherine Smith dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom and those above, with particular credit to the observation by * Pppery * that we cannot discount ambiguity with the identically pronounced Stacy Smith. BD2412 T 03:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)