User:Onel5969/sandbox/rfc

Possible Wording #1
Recently, there has been discussion on the gravity of the SNG WP:BCAST. On the one hand you have a group of editors who hold to the position that BCAST has endured enough scrutiny over the years to qualify as policy. On the other hand, there are editors who say that the SNG does not trump WP:GNG. As a NPP reviewer, it's easier to take BCAST as policy. In the past few years, there has been a movement to re-evaluate the gravity of several SNG's and essays. For example, prior to 2017, any secondary school was kept due to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but that was changed as a result of this. Most recently, there are two current discussions ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). The former seems heading for approval, while the latter still appears to be contentious. This year, there was also an aborted attempt to adjust WP:NCRIC, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 39. Finally, there was also an aborted attempt to tighten WP:NFOOTY at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 38. Regarding this last, at AfD, simply meeting NFOOTY, without some coverage, is no longer an absolute that the article can be kept (you can find the historical list of closed AfD's at WikiProject Football/Deletion archive.

The current language of WP:BCAST, relating to radio stations reads (numbers inserted for clarity purposes):

The choices are:

Which of the above options, if any, should be put into use?

Possible Wording #2
Shall we promote Notability (media) from "explanatory supplement" to "guideline"? Note that this will effectively make it a subject-specific notability guideline.