The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. The move of the film prior to this was inappropriate, however, and this should've been a multi-move. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per incoming links. "Multiple subject use the name" is no evidence of a lack of primary topic -- multiple subjects using the name means there's ambiguity. When there's ambiguity, there may or may not be a primary topic. No indication given that the current primary topic (the film, which the proposer has moved to the qualified name prematurely) is no longer the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
On what basis have you determined that the film is the primary topic? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
On the basis of the stable arrangement of the articles prior to your move. The germane question is "On what basis have you determined that the film is no longer the primary topic?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Many things are named Thunder Road. Why should they all be redirected to an article on a film? A Google search and common sense suggest that there is no one primary subject that goes by the title "Thunder Road". The film may be the most notable of any of the subjects but it's not primary. It's one of many subjects that use this name. So it makes sense that it is covered at the top of the disambiguation and the rest of the subjects get covered as well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"Many things are named Thunder Road" is not a reason to change from a primary topic to no primary topic. You didn't mention the Google search in your proposal. "Common sense" as well as anecdotal evidence also often fail to line up with readership usage. Please do add a comment below with the search(es) you've used to validate your intuition about changing from a primary topic to no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Neutral at this point, but agree with JHunterJ that it was quite inappropriate for the proposer to have pre-emptively moved the film without any discussion. At the very least, this should have been proposed as a multi-page move. older ≠ wiser 13:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Support, as the Thunder Road that the article points to currently, a film, is not necessarily the most well-known Thunder Road. Epicgenius (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment what will you be doing with the article currently occupying the destination, which you have failed to outline a course of action for? -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If there is consensus for the move, the film would be moved to Thunder Road (film), which was part of the action outline, just performed by the proposer and reverted by me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
You may be interested to know that out of the 35 links I fixed, only 14 were intended for the film. 16 were for the song, and 5 were indiscernible or for topics without articles. The "incoming wikilinks" criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't get much attention these days, generally because it's normal for all the links to be in order. In this case, however, it strongly suggests that moving the film from the base title was wise. Or maybe just that Bruce Springsteen fans are sloppy wikilinkers. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the kind of information that, if presented in the move proposal or discussion, could help support the Supports. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)