 | This draft RfC is not yet open for comments. Please discuss changes to the format of this RfC on the talk page, but do not comment on the topic of the RfC itself until it opens. |
Possible Wording #1 edit
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 February 2017 RFC. Most recently, there are two current discussions ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal to tighten WP:NGRIDIRON and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. 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#RFC: NFOOTY reform. 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Deletion archive.
The current language of WP:BCAST, relating to radio stations reads (numbers inserted for clarity purposes):
(1) There are considerably more radio stations in existence than television stations, some with large audiences and some with small. (2) However, radio stations tend to have long histories and while the owners and formats change, the stations generally stay put. (3) Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming. (4) Local affiliates of notable networks are themselves presumed notable unless they are translator stations (see below). (5) For instance, even a 10-watt station belonging to a high school may be notable, if it's in a fight to keep the grandfathered Class D license with which it's been broadcasting for thirty years. (6) On the other hand, licensed Travelers' Information Stations are generally not presumed notable, but might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover, or about the company that operates them if that company meets WP:CORP. (7) Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles.
The choices are:
| Option | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Codify BCAST as policy as currently stated. |
| 2 | Codify BCAST as policy, but with some modifications. |
| 2a | Modification 1 - broadening the language to better clarify the exceptions to GNG - to be determined through this RfC |
| 2b | Modification 2 - tightening the language to simply state: (1) same, (2 - 6) "Any station to have received a broadcast license, with the exception of translator stations (see below) shall be deemed notable". (7) same. |
| 3 | Clearly state that BCAST simply presumes notability, and that if a station does not satisfy WP:GNG, it is not deemed notable. |
Which of the above options, if any, should be put into use?
Possible Wording #2 edit
Shall we promote Wikipedia:Notability (media) from "explanatory supplement" to "guideline"? Note that this will effectively make it a subject-specific notability guideline.