Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart File System: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Smart File System: One secondary source is enough according to your link |
m →Smart File System: Fix indent |
||
Line 45:
:****I don't invoke [[WP:IAR]], if anything I just invoke [[WP:COMMON|common sense]] in applying [[WP:Notability]] (which, as a guideline and not a policy, "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense"), and in particular I ask that the requirements of notability "proof" are weighed against the conceivably possible "proof" that you could obtain for this ''sort'' of topic. If you, for example, set the bar as high as the amount of references you can find to establish notability for the [[Physics]] article, then you would exclude pretty much everything else. Instead, I think notability requirement should be toned down common-sensically (not waived) for topics that are quite technical and narrow, and as such, while still useful information to have, may not be on every book and magazine on Earth. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
:****:{{Ping|LjL}} The notability requirements are like that for good reasons, see [[WP:WHYN]]. Without good substantial sources, it's really not possible to write a neutral and verifiable article. Common sense tells me this applies regardless of what kind of subject it is. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]] <small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
:
|