Need, but how much?
Hmm, I don't know about this. Obviously there's some need for a notability standard, and I think we already have one (albeit a bit informally). I would be for some reasonable notability standard, but how would one define notability? Hopefully, not in the sense that wikipedia uses, as that's quite a bit higher than I think we can stand/do. -- JaeSharp 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's a subjective standard, yes, but the reason I proposed this in the first place was after I suggested Omer wasn't notable enough to have an article on WikiFur, and this was refuted on the talk page because there isn't a notability requirement on Wikifur. I had hoped to lay out enough examples to make the degree of notability clear, but if further explanation is required, I'll do my best. Spaz Kitty 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's requirement for notability is a result of its requirement for verifiability. They take the position that a certain amount of notability is necessary for there to be reliable, verifiable sources. We make no claims about being verifiable, nor do we rely on reliable sources - we simply aim for the truth. Obviously a reliable source is likely to trump hearsay, and people have held them to be necessary to prove certain things in the past, but that doesn't relate to actually having an article at all. I don't necessarily think a rule like "someone else should also have used it" is a bad idea, but it should be understood that it's being done for somewhat different reasons than Wikipedia. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- One of the reasons for making WikiFur was to provide a place for things not verifiable enough or notable enough for Wikipedia. There's no wiki below WikiFur for things below our notability/verifiability criteria. As long as there's something that can be collaboratively written, that has a furry-specific angle, include. Of course, some things may be so obscure that they may be merged into a larger topic, but that's somethings for editors on the topic to decide. --Rat 04:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed -- JaeSharp 04:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, move to archive, or
Delete this, move to some sort of archive of proposals, or merge some points into the Book of Style? I'm not seeing in the above discussion consensus to impliment this as policy. -- Sine 14:00, 24 May 2013 (EDT)
- Merge to some article which people will actually read. I think this is most relevant to people creating new pages.
- In fact, what we should really do is make a guide to making (or not making) a new page and link to it from the no article text and new page creation header. These messages could also be made more encouraging and direct users to our policies on page creation, make it clear that the subject can create a page but must abide by NPOV, etc. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:11, 24 May 2013 (EDT)