Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ones with atomic number >103. Whether they
exist or not is a grey area.
They can generally be "made to exist" for short periods of time. I'm not
sure whether it's fair to include an element just because it *has* been
made to exist (for a millionth of a second) and exclude another because
they couldn't decide whether made it exist or not. Anyway, scientific
theories have a place in Wikipedia, right or wrong - provided they have
been published in reputable journals.
Question: Are there any "reputable" sources that publish articles about
Pokémon characters?
When we move from "notable" to "reputable" we are just
replacing one
subjective criterion with another. Not only that, we are making a
decision for the reader that he should be making himself. We can cite a
dubious publication; we can even have an article about it since it at
least does exist. If the publication devotes itself entirely to Pokémon
fancruft or KKK rants it's fair for us to say that in our article about
it. It's then up to the reader to determine how reputable it really is.
Alright, so in boderline cases, simply keep anything with verifiable
references and deleted anything without as violating [[WP:NOR]].
[[WP:NOT]] a replacement for common sense, which a lot of our editors
seem to be severely lacking in.
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP