User:RogDel/Significant coverage not required
 | This is an essay. 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 page in a nutshell: The requirement of significant coverage as a criterion for notability is completely unjustifiable and absurd. |
- Why the requirement of significant coverage should not be a criterion for notability.
Significant coverage is a relative concept. One topic, e.g. Albert Einstein, may have more significant coverage than another topic, e.g. Franklin Edgerton, and that is usually because the former is more notable than the latter. While a whole life biography may be written on the former, only a paragraph of an article may be written on the latter. But does that stop Wikipedia from having a stand-alone article on the latter? It surely does not. Then why should anything at all stop Wikipedia from having a stand-alone article on a topic that has received trivial coverage in independent reliable source/s? If Wikipedia may have 100 page long, 50 page long, 10 page long, or even just 1 page long stand-alone articles, why may it not have a stand-alone article with just 1 possible sentence, such as an article on Three Blind Mice with just 1 sentence description that "Three Blind Mice is an American jazz band of which Bill Clinton, in high school, was notably a part of." Does such article, however short it may be, not serve Wikipedia’s ultimate purpose? It does. Is such article not useful? It is. In other words, if a topic has received coverage in independent, reliable, and verifiable source/s, however big or small, significant or insignificant the coverage may be, Wikipedia may have a stand-alone article on that topic.