Talk:Andrew Jacobs (lawyer)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primary
Not the primary Andrew Jacobs; not clear there is one, but he is not it if there is one. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 23 December 2014
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Pages moved.
 | It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links: current log • target log |
– It is not the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. For that reason this AJ was moved to AJ (lawyer). As you can see, interest in this particular AJ is quite limited, a few 2-22 searches per day in the limited time he had his own page that was not a default AJ page. AJ (Journalist) is searched for more (averaging about 15 per day, and up to over 100, as is AJ, Jr who is searched for about 15 times per day, up to over 60, and Andy Jacobs seems to be searched for the most, by a small margin. This lawyer does not appear primary in terms of usage, or to be highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Many more searches were made during that time span to other AJs, and certainly all as a group. Nor does his significance outstrip those of others with respect to long-term significance, or have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Despite that, when the suggested change was made it was moved back by another editor, with the request that to make the move the matter be brought here. I would have thought it uncontroversial, and that we could have spared this heavily laden page this discussion, but there you have it. Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Epeefleche. No obvious primary. Melonkelon (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.