 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Redirects are only included in categories for a few limited reasons ( Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects). The only one of these which is even vaguely relevant to Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories here is articles that could be at multiple titles. However an article can't be written about this subject because there is consensus that Richard Gage doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hence there should not be any article categories on this redirect. Note that the target of the redirect is in Category:Groups challenging the official account of the September 11 attacks. Hut 8.5 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- In my view, "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category" (the second item in the list on Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects) applies to the situation. The main reasons for not categorizing redirects seems to be (a) not having the target and the redirect in the same category (b) avoiding situations where the target and a redirect are categorized inconsistently, e.g. because the target categories have been updated, but not the categories of the redirect. Bot those reasons do not apply in this case. The example involving the newspapers "24 Heures" and "24 Hours" also shows that redirects that do not have an "identical" target (with regard to the subject) can be categorized. Cs32en 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The categorisation of the redirect "24 Heures" is because the article could be at "24 Heures" or "24 Hours". The article on AE9/11 Truth can't be here because Richard Gage isn't notable enough for an article and all the sources are about AE9/11 Truth. Hut 8.5 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it, if a person is notable for "one event", or a specific notable activity (such as AE911Truth), then — instead of having two articles —, the article on the event or activity should be created. This avoids having two articles that essentially contain the same stuff (except maybe for some personal and potentially non-notable details in the BLP). The reason is not that the person would be not notable, but that (a) duplication of information and (b) the more difficult BLP issues can be avoided by creating the article about the event, not the person. Cs32en 10:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Redirects are only included in categories for a few limited reasons ( Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects). The only one of these which is even vaguely relevant to Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories here is articles that could be at multiple titles. However an article can't be written about this subject because there is consensus that Richard Gage doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hence there should not be any article categories on this redirect. Note that the target of the redirect is in Category:Groups challenging the official account of the September 11 attacks. Hut 8.5 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- In my view, "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category" (the second item in the list on Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects) applies to the situation. The main reasons for not categorizing redirects seems to be (a) not having the target and the redirect in the same category (b) avoiding situations where the target and a redirect are categorized inconsistently, e.g. because the target categories have been updated, but not the categories of the redirect. Bot those reasons do not apply in this case. The example involving the newspapers "24 Heures" and "24 Hours" also shows that redirects that do not have an "identical" target (with regard to the subject) can be categorized. Cs32en 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The categorisation of the redirect "24 Heures" is because the article could be at "24 Heures" or "24 Hours". The article on AE9/11 Truth can't be here because Richard Gage isn't notable enough for an article and all the sources are about AE9/11 Truth. Hut 8.5 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it, if a person is notable for "one event", or a specific notable activity (such as AE911Truth), then — instead of having two articles —, the article on the event or activity should be created. This avoids having two articles that essentially contain the same stuff (except maybe for some personal and potentially non-notable details in the BLP). The reason is not that the person would be not notable, but that (a) duplication of information and (b) the more difficult BLP issues can be avoided by creating the article about the event, not the person. Cs32en 10:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)