[20:24:28] Is there a specific measure to define what [[Help:Restricted Wiki Topics]] calls a "clear body of work"? I think maybe saying something like "could you write 50 articles about this person" would be helpful; I'd like to know other people's thoughts [20:24:35]

[20:31:51] I think it's confusing when YouTubers get Wikis made about them, when the 'clear body of work' does not have a clear definition, and some people may argue that they do not have that 'clear body of work.' (I don't know if the wording of this makes sense lol) [20:32:46] I don't think we'll ever have a specific measure, but some examples of particularly cases where there isn't a "clear body of work" would be very useful [20:35:30] For example, I argue that Taylor Swift definitely has a 'clear body of work' to justify her having a wiki (which I don't think she does), but I don't see a 'clear body of work' for JackSucksAtLife, who does have a wiki [20:37:10] I think it may be best to follow under the principle that a wiki's topic & scope should allow more than a small number of pages to exist on it [20:37:39] I think I've heard the name JackSucksAtLife before, but the neat part about miraheze is that we don't really care about the notability stuff, that's what wikipedia is for [20:52:14] its basically the porn question, you know it if you see it but how do you draw the line and the thinner you get the trickier it is to define [20:53:36] [1/2] I try to be pretty generous as far as either a clear or conceptual body go and even treat them interchangably, if its something that can reasonably be described in even just a dozen pages and doesn't intuitively fit under a larger scope (ie a hyper specific character to a single video game should probably just go on a wiki for the latter) then on that point alone I am prone to saying [20:53:36] [2/2] there is a chance [20:54:18] and a lot of the single individual question comes down to really just the high chance of it being for seo/spam purposes than an actual concern of there being enough to write about [21:20:19] I am very stringent and will virtually never approve a youtuber wiki [21:21:32] well for the case of youtubers, I feel like you're very likely to end up with either a very small and pointless wiki, or one that has problems with its community [21:22:20] Yp [22:28:28] There's theoretically the possibility of a valid case being made in some cases, but I have to admit I can't imagine what it would look like and none of the ones I've come across in practice get close. [22:29:14] Series-focused ones I'd imagine would be more justifiable, but even then only a small subset will have sufficient material to have anything much to document. [22:29:21] And many of those that get approved end up mired in toxicity. Unfortunately common for it to be more trouble than its worth [22:29:52] I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a little too much sense. [23:05:20] I'm a big fan of [23:57:17] I think you can generally draw the line if you can look up the channel and get the vibe from what you see there