[tux3]

The main concern Wikipedia has with notability is that if you don't have reputable secondary source writing about the topic, then you won't have references for any claims in the article. People just starting adding things that they know, or that "everyone knows".

When people disagree about content, Wikipedia always falls back to just reflecting what reliable sources says. And if they disagree, people can always collaborate to try to give due weight to both viewpoints.

But if there are no reputable sources that have already written about the subject, articles risk becoming someone's personal blog about their favorite topic. The notability criteria isn't a bar about what's important enough or 'deserves' a Wikipedia page, it's a super practical matter about verifiability, content disputes, and generally just being on solid ground if any claim is challenged.

[lupusreal]

But "has reputable secondary sources" isn't even close to Wikipedia's real 'notability' determination.

[tux3]

Well, I can only say that it's what goes into my decision process. And it is a good part of what the written guidelines focus on.

No promises about what anyone else might be thinking at AfD!*

*(Articles for Deletion. The place where people spend a lot of time discussing notability)

[chris_wot]

It’s a problem of scale, which they are already hitting. This is where Ibis would be useful.