Unpopular opinion: the only rule for having a Wikipedia page about a topic should be : "Would someone in the world ever look for information about this topic on Wikipedia?"
The reason why some zealots try to remove "non-notable enough" pages is because they think it is a badge of honor to be on Wikipedia.
The reason why it is a badge of honor is because some zealots spend their time removing pages considered "non-notable enough".
@williampietri why is desire for a page not enough?
Wikipedia used to be about finding knowledge in a community. I used to be able to start a topic, find someone else to expand, add more sources myself later.
Now I have to prove that the topic is worthy, that myself is worthy to write about it and I have to create a perfect article on my own just to escape deletion.
While seeing that other pages somehow are allowed to be not perfect.
@thierna What part of "We at least need enough verifiable, reliably sourced information to make a page that's trustworthy and worth reading." do you disagree with and why?
@wonka @thierna @williampietri On wikias outside of Wikipedia, stubs are useful - indications of "There is a thing, but we don't have reliable and verifiable information about it. Please help us find more reliable information about it, if verifiable.".
The absence of information can be helpful.
@wonka @thierna @williampietri The immediate example that comes to mind is disputing misinformation; you could have a page titled "Evidence that the Earth is Flat", and then have it be a stub saying "There is no reliable and verifiable information that the Earth is flat. Did you mean the article 'The Earth is Round?'.
Then let the Flat Earthers *try* to edit that stubbed page, and you have one page to reject edits from or revert.
@wonka @williampietri
let me ask you,
what counts as enough?
is it one book, one published scientific article, one newspaper mention? does it need to be all of the above?
I have started some articles with a couple of those, provided links for articles or books from authors
and then I was told that this is not enough.
oddly this is mostly the case for female authors or scientists.
I have seen many male people on wikipedia who did not have more sources than what I provided.
@thierna I don't know what should be "enough". I do know though that just "desire for a page" without any verifiable source about the subject cannot be "enough", because that would violate the sensible and necessary rule of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research.
@thierna Demanding a higher standard for articles about women than for articles about men is obviously gender-based discrimination and must be rejected.
@wonka @thierna Yeah, I'm certainly not defending Wikipedia as perfect. As structured, it creates a lot of bad experiences for well-meaning editors. It's especially bad at the margins, because different volunteers will legitimately view marginal cases differently.
My main point is that proposals for change will never make a difference unless they understand both the drivers of inclusion and the drivers of deletion.
@thierna @williampietri And then the German Wikipedia has a book-long document with "relevant criteria" (Relevanzkriterien) for what is allowed in the German WP ...
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien
I've ran more than once into that, and gave up at some point.
@williampietri @pozorvlak @ploum
You're muddying the waters.
This isn't about "new pages", this is about existing pages that contain verified and well-sourced information that are being deleted because they're "not notable".
The standard of "notability" means that I *regularly* go back to pages because I'm someone in the world who was looking for information on the topic in Wikipedia, and some zealot has rushed it through deletion because they decided it was "not notable".
No, I'm not muddying the waters, and if you want to remain unblocked, you'll ease off on the allegations.
I agree there are problems with the notability standard, sometimes big ones. But the proposed "only rule" above just isn't enough. There are an ocean of people who believe their beloved thing belongs in Wikipedia and are eager to create a page and then wander off. Pages created in Wikipedia must be good for readers and the encyclopedia as a whole while being maintainable by the long-term contributors who do most of the work.
Wikipedia is stochastic. It's a text-based MMORPG that happens to produce a free encyclopedia as a side effect. I agree it's bad when good niche pages go missing, and I agree that zealots can be a problem, but they are also a huge labor pool.
If you think you have a better approach, feel free to give it a go, but I again suggest spending a week on NPP to get a sense of why Wikipedia works as it does.
@williampietri @pozorvlak @ploum
Oh jeeze, simmer down. This isn't about page creation and turning it around and making it about page creation totally changes the subject. Pick a less annoying term for changing the subject like that, but, again, jeeze.
Edit: Yay, my first block from someone who missed the point and doubled down.
@lyda I can tell you from experience that its a great tactic to combat spam.
I run my own community edited Wikipedia like platform, it has zero pages on my local computer without internet access.
I've yet to encounter a single troll or spam
@pozorvlak @ploum
ploum
Pozorvlak
William Pietri
Thierna
Wilfried Klaebe
Alexander The 1st
Willy (they/them)
Andreas Scherbaum
Resuna
Sally Strange
Kevin Lyda
CodexNotFound