On 07/03/2008, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/7/08, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia(a)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_%28…
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.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)