On May 5, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Phil Boswell wrote:
Again, replace Star Trek with Pokemon (my favourite punching bag, for no real reason). Would you really entrust Pokemon fans with deciding which Pokemon articles are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Surely your proposal simply leads to vastly greater inclusion rates.
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.
Undue weight. It's absurd for Pokemon to have 10,000 times more coverage within Wikipedia as, for instance, 19th century philosophy.