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