If someone is not publicly notable, why should they have their own Wikipedia page? And if all 7 billion of us get our own page, that&#x27;s going to create a shitload of name collisions. There&#x27;s only one entity called Dexter Jettster, but there are a hell of a lot of John Smiths out there. Likewise, despite my own surname being pretty rare and my first name being somewhat unpopular, there are still (at least) four of us in my country alone.<p>If someone isn&#x27;t publicly notable, then you have the above issue of name collision causing chaff, plus not having public sources to describe them appropriately (if they did, they&#x27;d be publicly notable).<p>Perhaps turn your question on it&#x27;s head: Why not make the Pokemon wiki a general wiki? If &#x27;pages are free&#x27; and you&#x27;re not forced to look at the content, why shouldn&#x27;t specialist wikis all work as general wikis? So what if Pokemon wiki is half about the Premier League and knitting, as the Pokemon information is still there?<p>&gt; <i>This reflects how the people related to this topics are just more knowledgeable (about the topic) and willing to cooperate to the Wikipedia than other groups.</i><p>Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopaedia, others are niche interest encyclopaedias. A general interest encyclopaedia is usually better off with smaller, easy-to-digest articles, leaving detailed treatises to the specialists. In a general wiki, having [minor] characters grouped together makes a lot more sense, whereas in a specialist wiki, the separate-page-per-character model is better.<p>I also think that many Wikipedia detractors simply <i>assume</i> that Every Wiki That Is Not Wikipedia does not have rabid editors. Likewise, there are plenty of wikis out there that don&#x27;t even allow public edits.