User talk:Timhain

December 2018
I see that you said in connection with the deletion proposal that the fact that the subject of an article has done nothing notable in their own right (as opposed to being connected to other notable people) is "is not a normal reason for removing articles". I can assure you that it is. Indeed, believing that it isn't is so well noted as a common error that there is a whole section of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions deleted to it, at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I admit that you know Wikipedia's standards far better than I do. I made my comment after referring to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, which did not make any mention of the issue you raise. Your links have shown me that I did not know all the policies.


 * I had gone to the Robin Bush page because she made news following the publication of editorial cartoons produced by Marshall Ramsey following the death of her mother in April, and her father in November of this year. I suspect that these cartoons will drive at least a temporary bump in traffic (and interest) in her story, and I think it would be a mistake to delete her page before the Pulitzer Prizes for editorial cartoons are announced. Perhaps the page should be edited to include references to Ramsey's cartoons in a "In Popular Culture" section? As a reference the Washington Post profiled the cartoonist and his most recent cartoon in this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/12/01/how-this-emotional-george-hw-bush-cartoon-went-viral-touching-even-his-family/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_bushcartoon-218pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans
 * --Timhain (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about Pauline Robinson Bush, and I have no opinion one way or the other on whether the article should be deleted. I just wanted to help you by clarifying that one point about deletions. The relevant point in the policy section "Reasons for deletion" that you link to is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". That list is just a brief summary, and it is necessary to follow the links to individual polices and guidelines to get further detail. This is an example of what I regard as by far the worst change that has happened to Wikipedia over the years, namely the proliferation and expansion of policies and guidelines, so that you can be reading a policy on something, but that policy depends on other policies on other pages, which in turn depend on other polices, many of which are ridiculously long and complicated. That makes it virtually impossible even for experienced editors to know the whole of all policies, and it can be hopelessly confusing for less experienced editors. The earliest versions of Wikipedia polices and guidelines all fitted onto one quite small page. Now there are to my knowledge at least 62 policy pages, many of them quite long, and I don't know how many guidelines. Unfortunately we will probably never go back to the days when things were simple enough for all editors to have a complete knowledge of all policies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation, JamesBWatson. I appreciate the clarification. Such a huge list of rules does make it difficult (and intimidating) for irregular editors to become involved. Certainly makes me appreciate the work of the regular editors like yourself. All the best! --Timhain (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)