David Goodman wrote:
many of us think important both the physical world and
the world of human
imagination, and interpret a comprehensive encyclopedia as including both
what would have been in a traditional scholarly encyclopedia if it had no
size restrictions, and what pertains to present day popularity.
Personally, I am much more interested in the scholarly part, but I know that
the way of really having full overage of academic topics in Wikipedia is
including everything for which there is some claim of suitability. At
present, when almost one-third of the member of the National Academy of
Science do not yet have articles, when two articles on the incoming
president of Barnard was just put up for deletion by an experienced
administrator, we should be expanding scholarly content, not denigrating
it.
My intent wasn't to denegrate, I've created my share of NGC object
articles myself. My intent was to point out a drastic double standard in
notability, whereby things that are of interest to a small number of
people but that are "scholarly" get a pass while things that are
demonstrably of interest to millions but that are "pop culture" get
culled without even AfD debate. IMO it's not a bad thing to have
articles on those scholarly topics, it's a bad thing to _not_ have
articles on the pop culture ones.
That incoming president of Barnard may have fallen into the BLP-specific
notability trap similar to the one that's currently eating mayor articles.