Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of like further reading.
The *character* is in a reliable source, it's just that the fact that it was based off a fandom joke or that the character's "creator" thought it was preexisting are not in reliable sources.
Why is this any different from any other kind of "arcana"? And do people really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business, whatever. If we wait until this becomes "information" - is documented in at least some literature about the area - that should be fine. Most specialist areas have at least a magazine. I don't think simply multiplying instances where at the margin the content policy works as it is intended to by itself undermines its purpose.
Charles