Wikipedia talk:Don't cite GNG

Move to userspace
@Ca: Would you consider moving this to your userspace and obtaining consensus that this should be in the Wikipedia project namespace? If not, I am thinking about starting an RM discussion. My reasoning follows.

Per, "Many essays... are obscure, single-author pieces. Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays..., or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic." While your proposed method has some appeal, I do not believe that the advice that if an article meets NPOV and V, then it should be kept, no matter how trivial it is, reflects the GNG itself, which states that an article may be considered notable only if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I believe that it is also contrary to what I view to be the normal methods of deletion discussions, where editors discuss whether reliable sources contain significant coverage.

To be sure, sometimes dissenting essays are presented in the Wikipedia project namespace, but I think that would require consensus as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I built this essay off the observation that WP:NPOV and WP:V are policies, WP:GNG is a guideline. The traditional method of checking for reliable sources contain significant coverage is sufficient in most cases, but this essay addresses the situations that GNG doesn't quite fit in well. There is an additional word preceding your tq which is critical: "well-fledged". The meaning of the word is, of course, in the eye of the beholder, but if an article is "well-fledged" it most likely meets GNG.
 * I think the situation here is that we have two different interpretation of a vaguely worded guideline, and I believe that this is not deviant enough from the establish policies to warrant userification.
 * However, there is no qualms on you opening an RM discussion. Cheers, Ca talk to me!  11:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your intent. In that case, I think this is appropriate for the userspace, and I have a few suggestions that I think would strengthen the essay:
 * You bury the lead regarding NPOV and V in that bullet point. Those should be mentioned up in the first paragraph.
 * You stated above that the GNG method is sufficient in most cases, but the essay states that the GNG is a "general rule of thumb", meaning that "two people can look at it and come to two radically different conclusions." I suggest clarifying that that is the rare case and most discussions come to a consensus.
 * I still disagree with the sentiment that so long as an article is "well-fledged", verifiable, and neutral, it should be kept, no matter how trivial it is. WP:NOTEVERYTHING states: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Perhaps use of the word "trivial" is what's tripping me up, because generally that's used to refer to trivial coverage when discussing SIGCOV. I would suggest using a different word, perhaps "mundane" (if that's what you meant by use of the word "trivial").
 * voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I mostly agree with your assessment. Most discussions do come to a consensus and the word "trivial" was a bad choice. I incorporated your recommendations to the essay. Ca talk to me!  14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)