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.
Ec