" 

 :::No harm done. I know exactly what you mean, having had the same thoughts myself. To shed some light on what i'm doing why - in my opinion, proper linking and categorizing is essential for a encyclopedia this size and still growing. I often come across said ""Notable""-sections in articles filled with people that don't show up in the corresponding category (if existing), or vice versa. Thus i try to synchronize both. I check all people already there and distinguish them between ""born"" and ""lived/worked/died"" with bold text, add the persons already categorized, add cats the other way round and add born- and died-years. Wile i'm at it, i go through the other cats, and make minor adjustments, spelling corrections and the like, to the article while ""passing by"". Needless to say that i add proper refs to the main article, if missing. 

 :::Who to add is an entirely different question. Take New York City for example. There is a plethora of people, musicians, artists and so on, moving there. I'm not sure NYians would like to see every notable person taken off their list and just left those actually born there. Adding only people in some way important to a city would also raise another question: where to draw the line? How to decide which non-native is to add to notable sections, and who not? As i see it, every person born, grew up, moved to, worked at, lived or died in a given city, should be added to their notable people section. If getting too long, it can and should always be forked to it's own article. I see absolutly no problem with that as long as everything is ref'd properly and it is apparent who is a native, and who is not. 
 :::Thanks for the feedback, and again, no harm done. We both share the same goal, and your work on small towns is very appreciated. Regards,   "