Talk:Thomas Sewell (judge)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography

	Biography portal 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
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Law Start‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 21 January 2023

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: moved (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– No WP:PTOPIC. Thomas Sewell (Australian neo-Nazi) has averaged 40 daily page views over the past eight years (the article was created in March 2021; since then it has averaged 159 views). Thomas Sewell has averaged 5 daily page views. There are also three Tom Sewells and one Tommy Sewell. There could potentially also be some confusion with Thomas Sowell. page views. Schierbecker (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. There are six men listed upon the Thomas Sewell (disambiguation) page, with the relatively brief article delineating the English judge, Member of Parliament and Master of the Rolls, who died 239 years ago, not rising to a level of notability sufficient to dwarf the combined renown of the remaining five men. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Thomas_Sewell indicates 111 incoming views and 26 go to the disambiguation hatnote (~23%), with no other link combination getting more than 10 clicks to get shown. I wouldn't say the statistics necessarily show a lack of primary topic by usage, though it is moot. By long term significance, however, I wouldn't say a fringe activist and the sportspeople compare to a high-level politician. Then again I disambiguated a lot of politician names myself because they tend to get undue weight. This is probably safe to disambiguate, even though if it effectively creates a small kind of a promotion for the fringe activist. --Joy (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2023 (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.