User:Vassyana/notability

In general, if we don't have enough sources for a complete and decent article, a topic shouldn't have its own article. People need to use some damn sense.

"Obviously" notable
There is no such thing as "inherent" notability. Either there are enough sources for a decent article or there are not.
 * That means that companies whether or not they are publicly traded, still require sufficient sources.
 * That means even if a place exists, it still requires sufficient sources.
 * That means even if you think something is popular, it still requires sufficient sources.
 * Deleting secondary school articles should not be so controversial they require the bureaucratic process of AfDs. Secondary schools are not inherently notable.

Few sources
Just because you can provide one or a small handful of sources, it does not mean a topic is notable.
 * The ability to document something is not the same as notability.
 * If there aren't enough sources to craft a decent article and satisfy WP:NPOV, the subject shouldn't have an article.
 * If something is likely to be a permanent stub, it should be deleted or used as a section in another article.
 * We cannot assume fortune-telling powers and say there will be sources in the future. If the sources don't exist now, the article should be deleted or merged until such a time as sufficient sources exist.

Professionals
Just because a person is a professional (including sports), does not mean they are notable.
 * Sufficient sources for a decent article and to demonstrate notability are still required.
 * I couldn't care less how great you think your player is, if multiple reliable independent sources haven't stopped to say anything more about him than his statistics.

Inherent and inherited notability
Both inherent and inherited notability have been rejected by the community as notability standards. We should treat them as rejected guidelines, not helpful suggestions.