I actually don't see /how/ you could create 30 articles on a single Pokémon character without violating a) WP:NOR, b) WP:V, c) copyright, d) the laws of physics.
I don't know whether documenting every single thing the character does in every episode would violate copyright. But you have a point.
Yes, with WP:NOR and WP:V doing a good job at covering just about everything else - most of what /could/ be called "nn, d." can more succinctly be summed up as "The subject of this article is non-notable because what has been written amounts to original research and is not verifiable". I've been arguing this for about a year now.
This is a very interesting approach. In other words: If no one else has written about it, it musn't be notable. We don't decide for ourselves what is notable, any more than we decide for ourselves what truth is. The trouble is that there certainly *are* areas where nothing serious is written about it, yet is clearly interesting. [todo: find me an example someone :)]
Well, a while ago someone said "there are /no/ notability guidlines", and I almost believed it. Of course, this was before I realised what a trollpit AfD was; we quite clearly *do* have notability guidelines, cf. WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc.
Yeah. The other thing is, now that I think about it, very very many bands have articles written about them in local "music scene" papers. But these have two problems: A) So many articles are written, it doesn't really mean much in terms of notability. Even debut performances can get writeups in advance. B) Actually finding these articles. If they're not on the internet, how would you find them?
Put them up at [[Wikipedia:Notability guidelines]]?
Good idea. Anyone want to do this before I come back from [[Les Trois Vallées]] on Monday? :)
Steve