Talk:Hillary Scott

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: Moved to

• Support per nom. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 08:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Actually, the page views show that, except for a few spikes, the views are not very different. And Google tends to hide pornography-related hits by default, so that would bias the search toward the singer. kennethaw88 • talk 06:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per kennethaw88 - one of the situations where ghits are not reliable. StAnselm (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above arguments. I also will mention that they are relatively close in age, which means there should be no primary topic. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:901C:81B9:CD7A:CD2A (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article subjects' ages have nothing to do with primary topic determinations. Primary topic begins and ends at comparing reliable source coverage — it is entirely possible for a younger person to be primary topic over an older person with the same name. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is the
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually says. Standard Google searches may obscure hits for a porn actress, but Google Books and News would not, and the singer is far and away more prominent there. Google would also not affect page views, where the singer also predominates. Additionally, the fact that the two are "relatively close in age" has no bearing on whether one is the primary topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - Wikipedia is not Google. In this case, neither the singer nor the porn star is more significant than the other. Two singles are not enough to make the singer more primary than the other. If she releases more singles, and she becomes more prominent, then we can reconsider. Right now, this screams "recentism". --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC); see newer vote. George Ho (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, she has only released two singles as a solo artist, but the fact that the singer is part of an
    award-winning band which has released quite a few hits (she is more known as part of a group than a solo artist) does not scream recentism of any sort IMO. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Hmm... The singer's significance seems to be group-based (thanks for pointing it out), but she recently started her solo career... Actually, she collaborated with her family. However, the actress also won awards whose natures are... too explicit to describe. Hmm... her films haven't reach the significance similar to those of the singer's works.

      On to usage, the pageviews says that the singer bio is more viewed than the other... but not enough in my mind. I don't know what to say about the mountainous spikes of the views on the singer page, but they happen occasionally for a few days or weeks. Compare last year's.

      Also,

      WP:CBALL, I won't support the move, leaving me neutral toward the matter. Frankly, are we putting ourselves first before general audience by making the singer the primary topic? --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Support a clear case of PTOPIC. Google Trends show clearly higher interest for the singer compared to the actress. The fact that both topics are of a similar age is evidence that neither topic suffers from more recentism than the other. feminist 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.