 |
This is an essayonnotability.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This is an essay I am working on about clarification of WP:GNG after being involved in several deletion discussions at WP:AFD and WP:DRV
In an WP:AFD for a small school in a foreign country[1], the creating editor added the following content from a reliable 3rd party source.
"...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes existed."
This coverage was from a reliable 3rd party source, presumed independent of the organization in question, and seemed to pass the WP:GNG muster. That being said, applying a WP:DUCK test asking "is this notable in an encyclopedic context" should hopefully result in a no.
I think the following layout for determining notability would help provide clarity of what content is encyclopedic, and what content is not, without reducing it to a single 5 lines to judge all articles.
Imagine the following two hypothetical WikiProjects: WPROJ:Dumb Sports and WPROJ:Thumb Twiddling
'ThumbTwiddling, a new novelty, has received a decent amount of coverage, with various local thumb twiddlers receiving the brunt of the attention. Not all of these thumb twiddlers are truly "notable", but may pass WP:GNG so,
WPROJ:Thumb Twiddling adds the following hierarchical notability requirements
These requirements are very specific to this dumb sport. and by applying them on top of WP:GNG allows for further refinement of notability expectations based on the specifics of this sport.
