-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 David Gerard wrote: Why should we have articles on every single Pokemon if they are totally unknown outside of the Pokemon community? I never said that such things wouldn't become more-well known and hence eventually merit their own articles. Right, the problem I see is that people with an "extreme interest" in X (you might even call it obsession) think that "all X are equally important and Wikipedia should have articles on all of them, including Y and Z". The problem is, the rest of the X community says "oh, Y and Z are just another couple of X's, nothing special". By including Y and Z, we are effectively pushing the POV that there is something different about Y and Z with respect to all other X. Now, should Y and Z become well-known within the X community, we can mention them in the article about X, possibly even with their own sections in the article on X. Finally, should Y and Z become known /outside of/ the X community, we can have an article on it. I feel that an excellent example of this is the Slashdot series. Well, we always have the ability to merge and redirect... I really don't understand what you're saying here. That's completely wrong... - -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \

David Gerard wrote people think an article being deleted means another article on that topic can never be created, ever. Back to the classroom for them. ' Topic X is not one on which an encyclopedic article can ever be written' (X = my left nostril, for example) is a sufficient condition to delete. It is not a necessary condition, though in a sense if AfD were working at near 100% potential any salvageable article would be kept as a stub. If it were a necessary condition, then, yes, the 'what has changed?' argument would be quite strong. But that's not the case, nohow. Charles