Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1-20)
I am inclined to agree that there is an influence of  violation here, but it's not because I am in anyway close to this article or related pages concerning this mergism effort; there was a lot of discussion over at  for at least the past five months about how many of the 493 separate articles on Pokemon species, having hardly been the subject of coverage by reliable second-party sources as per , must rely on game guide, trivia, and sourcing to fansites to fill them up with content lest they remain unexpandable stubs (none of this is my personal opinion about this, it's what the other users citing Wikipedia's content policies were saying; I would have been content with having it remain at 493 articles had none of those debates took place), and it was suggested, by myself at times, that implementing an alternative setup of species sharing articles would both remove the need for such mediocre information, promote the more practical information about the species to more of Wikipedia's general demographic of readers rather than just to the Pokemon fan community, and possibly allow for better sourcing. I and others suggested several merge plans over time, and they generally did not gerner much consunsus at all like Starblind notes above, but recently a proposal came up that garnered more consensus than before (detailed Wikipedia_talk:Pokémon_Collaborative_Project#A_combination_proposal|here and Talk:List_of_Pokémon_%281-20%29#Merged_Proposal_by_Zappernapper|here). Based on the apparent consensus to do that, I made this page and started making its companion pages and template (which obviously aren't anywhere nere being finished, BTW), because I consider myself a strict supporter of consensus. I believe this AFD nomination somewhat violates  like many others here are saying, not just for the reason they give, but that the nominator may have benefited from carefully reading the complete debates about merging species pages in 's history (where applicable Wikipedia content policies were often cited) to find out firsthand everything I just detailed historically, and then engaging the project critically, constructively, and thoroughly before making the decision to attempt an AFD (discussions in particular are linked Wikipedia_talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_Collaborative_Project/Archive_8#Being_serious_about_this|here and below in its subsections, Wikipedia_talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_Collaborative_Project/Archive_11#.22Importance.22|here, Wikipedia_talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_Collaborative_Project/Archive_11#General_issue_with_many_of_the_Pokemon_articles...|here, and Wikipedia_talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_Collaborative_Project/Archive_14#Is_there_any_reason_why_all_Pokemon_are_necessarily_notable.3F|here and below in its subsections for easier reference), but his AFD nomination and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErik_the_Appreciator&diff=123539599&oldid=119125580 telling me outright to stop making the pages doesn't really help matters. I think this could have been a good-faith mistake and misinterpretation of Wikipedia content policy on the nominator's part, and I most certainly do NOT want to antagonize anybody on the internet with what I do on Wikipedia, which is why I make it a point to follow consensus, and if consensus either calls for making a Pokemon species mega-merge or for ''not'' making it and keeping it at 493 separate articles, I'll follow it
— User:Erik, 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:POINT||WP:POKE||WP:ATT||WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point)