> Presumably, though, you agree there should be SOME criteria for what is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? For example, in order of increasing mun

> Presumably, though, you agree there should be SOME criteria for what is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? For example, in order of increasing mundanity these topics probably don't deserve a Wikipedia article: Me, my cat, my cat's water bowl, the water in the bowl on May 5, 2020 etc. Well, there are a few criteria that are inherent: 1. Something is at least a little notable if someone is willing to write about it. In a literal sense, it's notable because someone noted it. 2. There's also the citation factor: even if someone cites their own work, they've at least gone to the effort to note it twice. > Like, there must be some line that separates what deserves an article and what is does not. Citation needed. Why must there be such a line?