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.