Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) is, as its name suggests, a general rule of thumb. This means two people can look at it and come to two radically different conclusions. Yet, GNG often appears in deletion discussions, which sometimes leads to arguments on the definitions of GNG itself, rather than any source analysis being done. Though most discussions still come to a consensus one way or another, asking this question is still helpful:
"What is the best possible article that can be made given the available sources?"
- If the answer is a well-fledged, NPOV-abiding, and verifiable article, then the article should be kept, no matter how mundane it is.
- If the answer is an article filled with Tweets, tabloids, and a massive controversy section, then the article should be deleted.
Likewise, if the vast majority of the content can be merged to other articles, it probably does not need to exist.
What really matters is the content, not three-letter acronyms.