On 07/03/2008, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/08, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
So what if there are 500 Pokémon character biographies? They're not harming anyone.
Actually it seems like most of the Pokémon not featured on t-shirts and lunch boxes have been merged to lists according to their Kanto Pokédex number or whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_%288...
Somebody must have felt harmed. I know I do.
I'm no fan of Pokemon, but the deletion of well-written Pokemon articles demonstrate the motives of "deletionists". Pokemon characters have lots of media and sources associated with them, have a lot of fans who would be interested in reading these articles and editing them, and are "notable". They're also a great way to get people involved in Wikipedia: they come to the site, see how good our coverage of that subject is, and begin contributing/getting interested in the project.
So, Pokemon characters are "notable", verifiable, have the potential to become FAs, have a lot of users to support them, and may get people interested in Wikipedia. The only reason to oppose articles on Pokemon characters is that a traditional encyclopedia wouldn't have these articles (more succinctly: elitism).
This kind of deletion for no purpose but to appease some editors' notions of what is encyclopedic isn't helping anyone. It's driving away potential editors, it is driving away new editors, and it is driving away experienced editors.
Those who support deleting articles to make Wikipedia more fitting to their notion "encyclopedia" are only furthering their own ends. They are not helping Wikipedia as a collaborative encyclopedia.