Talk:Jeryl Lynn Hilleman

This is a useful redirect to a page which has as much about the person as is necessary at present. It does no harm and does not affect the meaning of the target page. How could it? Someone looking her up gets taken to a page about the vaccine, which is likely what they need.

Redirects are cheap. (These comments by .)

The lady in question may or may not be notable on other grounds - I think having a vaccine strain which is used on millions of people each year named after is probably notable of itself. One day this may be a biography, like her father's Maurice Hilleman.

Midgley 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirects are cheap in terms of computational expense, but that's not an insightful remark. Heathhunnicutt 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The expense of your redirect is this: it will divert the article from its original subject to the subject you would prefer be covered in its place. In particular, you have commented that you contacted the P.R. department at Ms. Hilleman's employer yesterday, alerting them to this redirect of yours. Heathhunnicutt 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the original Jeryl Lynn article, the topic was the Jeryl Lynn strains of mumps virus which are named after Ms. Hilleman. Your change would cause the article to primarily be about a subject that it is not about.  This is the expense of your redirect -- it is obfuscating, much as your comment about "expense" also was. Heathhunnicutt 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * None of this is so. "Redirects are cheap" is a WP policy that in general any reasonable search term that someone types in should take them to the article where information about that atom appears.  This applies very well here.  There is no such thing as the article being primarily about or being changed, however if there were what is so special about your view of the topic compared to anyone else's?  See WP:OWN and indeed the note below the edit box.  Please do not impute motives to me which are clearly in breach of WP:AGFMidgley 09:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also as a courtesy to the lady and on the basis that further information might be forthcoming I notified the company - not the PR department, that is plain fabrication - that the article Jeryl Lynn - not the redirect which did not exist at that time - existed. It is tiresome to have to explain this, but I don't have her email address, and therefore a message to her via her company seems reasonable.  I would expect the company to simply pass it on, and see no reason at all why it should involve the PR department.  It seems reasonable to me, and indeed it is not clear quite why it is raised above.  Midgley 09:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)