Wikipedia talk:What is and is not routine coverage

Uselessness of WP:ROUTINE

WP:ROUTINE is basically useless, then, as a way of figuring out what's notable, because some routinely-covered topics are notable and others aren't; and some non-routinely-covered topics are notable and others aren't. For example, murder isn't really a "routine" event, at least in a small town. But not every murder gets a Wikipedia article, despite the media coverage that murder investigations and trials tend to attract. Conversely, Presidential elections are routine, but every one gets an article.

"Routine coverage" ends up being just a red herring and a meaningless thought-stopping cliche. People will say in deletion debates, "Yeah, I know you have lots of reliable sources, but c'mon, this is just the kind of routine coverage that the media gives EVERY terrorist who takes hostages at an embassy and then detonates a bomb right as a special forces team is breaking in through the window!" The debate then gets sidetracked into questions of whether that particular terrorist got more coverage than a typical terrorist who committed similar acts.

(I'm exaggerating a little, but you get the point.)

We may as well just call it "minor coverage" or "insignificant coverage" or the like. In other words, just apply the WP:GNG. St. claires fire (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think you are graspoing the point of hte essay here. "Routine" is certainly the wrong word -- Minor or insignificant coverage might be better, but how would those be gauged? Well, it would come down to WP:GNG just as you mention. I've just seen so many articles be proposed for deletion because the coverage is called "routine" when it's a full-page article in USA-Today or something like that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)