Talk:Suri Cruise/Archive 1

Edit protected request
Article should be unprotected and restored.. Child is much more notable then most child royalty we have here.
 * Born to two famous parents.
 * Has recieved alot of press lately.
 * and has also been on the cover of famous magazines. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Declined. Has anything changed since Articles for deletion/Suri Cruise was concluded? Anyway, I won't be unprotecting the redirect unless there's a consensus to do so. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The child has got even more notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also declined by me. A four-month-old child is not notable simply because her parents are.  The press wouldn't be occurring if her parents weren't famous, which again doesn't mean notability in Wikipedia's sense.  Ral315 (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Princess Mako of Akishino has had alot less press then this child yet it is notable and Suri is not? I think not because in my book this child is more notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please change the Redirects to Katie Holmes. Suri Cruise is not the same person as Katie Holmes, so the redirect makes no sense. --84.160.234.38 16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No. This was already voted on and a consensus was reached.  --Yamla 16:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest removing the "2006 births" category from the redirect, as Katie Holmes (the article to which the page redirects) was born in 1978. Waggers 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
Rather than "Suri Cruise" redirecting straight to "TomKat", wouldn't it make more sense to redirect directly to the "Suri Cruise" section of "TomKat"? (i.e., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomkat#Suri_Cruise) I just think a specific redirect to a section specifically about the child is more appropriate than a generic article about her parents. (--and please don't just say "No." Can we have a vote?) --Schmendrick 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that exact same thing, so I fixed it a few minutes ago (just before reading your post).  нмŵוτн τ  20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)