Which is partly why I kind of mourn the fall of Wikipedia. By having an arbitrarily defined criterion of &quot;meaningful&quot; knowledge is spread across hundreds of wikis rather than being in the singular copyleft originator.<p>Why couldn&#x27;t the Pokemon Wikipedia articles be as extensive as the Bulbapedia ones? There is demonstrable demand and interest in maintaining such extensive information <i>as evidenced</i> by the commitment of the contributors to Bulbapedia to keep it so up to date and pristine.<p>If an article rots where nobody wants to maintain it or cannot write it with sufficient information to justify it&#x27;s existence that is a very different situation to this. But that is not an arbitrary line of relevance someone pushes upon everyone else. You could just have a minimum length and minimum sources and be done with it.