User talk:AlexTheRose

Bulbagarden
The core criterion that a topic has to meet to be considered notable on Wikipedia is that it has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject, by which we can verify the accuracy and the neutrality of the content. Things aren't entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; proper sourcing has to be present.

It doesn't matter what an individual editor asserts about how the topic must be notable because it's the largest Pokémon fanbase on the Internet, or because it has X number of members, or whatever — notability on Wikipedia is not a function of the topic's size, but of the volume of coverage it has or hasn't gotten in proper, valid reliable sources. A website with five members can be notable if coverage in reliable sources can be demonstrated, and a website with 50 million members can be non-notable if coverage in reliable sources is absent.

If you can add proper, reliable sources which demonstrate the site's notability in a way that meets Wikipedia's inclusion rules, then by all means, recreate the article — but if you can't add proper, reliable sources about the site, then it isn't entitled to an article on here no matter what you or any other editor claim about how big and important it is. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for the Barnstar. It means a lot to me! Nice to see people notice you at times. Cheers. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 02:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)