This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Phillip Adams (writer) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see
info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of
Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating
neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see
deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
clarify the claim, "Billed as the godfather of the Australian Film Industry". Who made this claim? Should it be changed?
establish the dates each film was made and the role played by Phillip Adams in them.
Improve the bibliography and filmography entries by adding publication dates and release dates for the books and films.
add some stub articles to fix up the links that go nowhere.
claim fair use for the photo of Phillip Adams and do the appropriate notations with regard to the image file ie place hidden text at bottom of page and update image copyright information. The photo is currently unverified.
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: No consensus to move. Many commentators believe it will be easier to judge the primary topic after the news cycle moves on. (
non-admin closure) (
t ·
c) buidhe19:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The spike in the football player is tied to his recent death and related mass shooting.
[2] Until then, the Australian averaged 100 views/day and the football player < 10.—
Bagumba (
talk)
10:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Not commentator, please. I've rather learnt to know him as a radio host, but he also became known as a writer. Being the elder of the two, please note that Phillip Adams the writer will also remain more prominent in the long run than just another football player. So, I wonder whether we need a disambiguation at all. When I read about the death of a certain Phillip Adams on the main page of Wikipedia, of course I thought of this Phillip Adams; I had not heard about another one before at all. Regards,
Aschmidt (
talk)
09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
That's right. Thanks for asking, @
Bagumba. I mean when you hear the name Phillip Adams most people – now and in the long run – will think of the radio host in the first place.
Aschmidt (
talk)
11:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
ICYMI, Phillip Adams (American football) will not be remembered as "just another football player" and it is not likely that his pageviews will go back down to 10/day. I do, however, also disagree with the proposed disambiguator, and think
Phillip Adams (journalist) might be a better fit.
162.208.168.92 (
talk)
19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose –
WP:RECENTISM – Let's wait 12 months and assess enduring notability for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then. Further: the disambiguator "(commentator)" is, apart from very few cases, used for sports commentators. This would be especially inappropriate here. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
13:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose – per Michael Bednarek's suggestion. Phillip Adams has had a huge presence in Australian cultural life over many decades, and will have an enduring legacy.
Bahudhara (
talk)
16:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now per Michael Bednarek. It would probably be best to see what page views are when events aren't so fresh. We shouldn't preemptively assume what level of attention the other Adams' actions will retain long-term. (
WP:CRYSTAL).
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
20:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per RECENTISM. Requesting page moves when one of the page move subjects has just hit the news and will likely wane is not really appropriate. --
Masem (
t)
21:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Support He wasn't just "another football player," he murdered six people - which is far more notable than any part of his football career. As another user said, it is not likely that the pageviews for his article will drop down to 10/day. Now (10 days after the shooting) the page views have largely stabilized - at around 4,000 per day - and it is likely to stay high. -
Crossover1370 (
talk |
contribs)
19:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested move 2 January 2022
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.
Strong support the footballer has 117,778 views compared with only 3,123 for the judge and the suicide was nearly 9 months ago so recentism should be less of an issue, also the sport shooter has 264 views. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
09:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I have no idea. For that reason alone, I'll Oppose. I still think that page views, which fluctuate wildly for the footballer, support the above argument of WP:Recentism. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
03:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. I agree with Michael Bednarek - the Australian is very difficult to categorise, given his many roles, including being a leading figure in the renaissance of the Australian film industry, and as a public intellectual. Re the footballer, despite that country's obsession with
Gun violence in the United States, there's so much of it that interest in him will probably continue to wane over time as it's overtaken by other incidents.
Bahudhara (
talk)
05:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong support per nom, very clearly not the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by page views or long-term significance. The page HAS to be moved, the only question is what the disambiguator is, and I think "journalist" or "broadcaster" (or both as redirects) should be fine.--
Ortizesp (
talk)
14:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: Of the 7 men at the disambiguation page, only 3 are name "Phillip Adams". // I suggest that another way of measuring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is to count "what links here". There are >330 for the Australian, >190 from articles, and >110 for the footballer, 47 from articles. Results for other users may be different, but here in the top 20 Google search results, 2 are for the footballer, 2 for others, and 16 for the broadcaster. Bing's top 10 give 4 for the footballer, 6 for the Australian. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I think broadcaster is a sensible term for him. He does write stuff which resembles the witterings of a senile millionaire lefty hobby-farmer, which is published in
The Australian to keep the blood pressure of its audience high, but his main claim to fame is his show on the wireless which is unaccountably popular.
Greglocock (
talk)
23:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I guess it's informative to have the views of someone who detests the subject of the discussion, but really not that useful. I became aware of Adams long before he was a broadcaster and, as others have pointed out, he is famous for a lot more than that. Narrowing it to Broadcaster would be classic
recentism. This article describes him as "an Australian humanist, social commentator, broadcaster, public intellectual and farmer". I don't think the last in that list matters for this challenge, but is it against the rules to use ALL of the first four, i.e. "Australian humanist, social commentator, broadcaster and public intellectual"?
HiLo48 (
talk)
01:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Good grief, I don't detest him, life is too short. And I may have been exaggerating. You are right, recentism is a good way of describing 'broadcaster'. The stuff he did in the film industry was pretty significant. Um, given the difficulty of encapsulating a life in one word, perhaps PA(Australian) would do? I'll leave it at that.
Greglocock (
talk)
19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Support With multiple notable people named Phillip Adams, disambiguation is needed. I'd support Phillip Adams (Writer) more than journalist because he wrote advertising copy, scripts, columns, books, essays, opinion pieces. He gets a lot of mentions and links because he worked in Australian media for many years and often (deliberately) stirred up controversy. Perhaps Phillip Adams (Influencer) might be more apposite. He used to be more notable than he is now. Once bitingly witty, now merely sad old bigot, a caricature of what he used to be. --
Pete (
talk)
03:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"Writer" is a good suggestion. I am intrigued now though as to why some commenters seem so desperate to say rude things about this person. That's two here now. It really isn't helpful.
HiLo48 (
talk)
10:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.