On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
But if all of those articles were of good quality and well referenced, who could possibly object? Those articles are still subject to fearless editing from anybody who wants to fix the often egregious grammar and spelling (as is common elsewhere I should add :-). Also WP:NOT paper, remember? It's not as if those articles on Pokemon are taking up space which would otherwise be available for your own pet subject.
I'm assuming, perhaps unfairly, that Pokemon voters will keep to vote anything related to Pokemon, good quality and well referenced or not. If they would actually behave like ideal model AfD voters, then this discussion is moot.
Similarly, if you want to argue for the removal of notability as criteria for in Wikipedia, then that's a different discussion entirely.
Also, that knife cuts both ways: you could set up your own WikiProject(s) to cover your areas of interest. Would you want armies of Pokemon fans hammering your articles because they don't think they're notable?
WP:OWN, there's no such thing as "my articles" :p
Actually, come to think of it, doesn't it seem interesting that you don't often see a Pokemon fan trying to have huge swathes of articles on other subjects removed because they don't recognise the subjects? Maybe some people could learn a bit of tolerance from their example...
Maybe they do, we don't have a foolproof method for detecting Pokémon fans.
(what's more surprising is no one has yet objected to my merciless Pokemon-bashing)
Steve