[Wikipedianon]

Most articles on notable AND interesting subjects have already been written and are of a high quality.

"notability" means there are peer-reviewed/editorially controlled articles on the topic.

So, if I wanted to write an article on Gas Town, I couldn't. It got a lot of technical blogs and Arxiv preprints written about it by experts, but it won't be notable.

[20after4]

This gets at one of the biggest flaws in Wikipedia, IMO. I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable.

[ryan_lane]

The alternative is that the Daily Stormer is usable as a source.

There has to be some mechanism of determining what should and shouldn't be usable as a source.

[20after4]

I agree there needs to be a line, I just don't particularly like where the line has been drawn. Unfortunately I don't have a great idea for how to do it better. That is why I'm commenting on HN rather than arguing for any particular policy change on wiki.

[thaumasiotes]

Huh? The notability standard governs what may be the subject of a wikipedia page and what may not.

Ideological purity is enforced by the reliable source standard, not the notability standard. The Daily Stormer is unquestionably notable. And it has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer

[ryan_lane]

I think it's the parent that's confusing this:

> I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable.

They're saying that main stream media sources are what can be used to define something is notable or not. The question isn't "Is the Daily Stormer" notable (it is), it's should the daily stormer be usable as a source to determine if something is notable or not (it shouldn't be, obviously).