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.
ploum
Pozorvlak
William Pietri
Thierna
Wilfried Klaebe
Alexander The 1st