I recently, on a whim, picked up a copy of a magazine called "Filmfax
Plus: The Magazine of Unusual Film, Television, and Retro Pop
Culture." I was quite struck by the depth, detail, and maturity of
writing in this rather schlocky-looking periodical.
This particular periodical is at issue number 111. There are stories
in it about Chesley Bonestell, the artist who almost single-handedly
created the visual experience of space travel in dozens of science-
fiction magazines, SF movies, and a museum diorama or two; on Kirk
Alyn, an early film portrayer of Superman; on the making of Walt
Disney's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea;" on John Belushi; and a host
of others. The articles in it are highly detailed, factual,
apparently nonpromotional, and generally written at an intelligent
adult level. (Their greatest weakness is that it is not clear what
the writers' credentials are or what sources they used for the
article; in the case of the Belushi article, it was an interview with
Belushi's widow).
This underlines my belief that there are plenty of good, verifiable
sources for popular culture material.
This cuts both ways, of course. On the one hand, I believe it is
_quite possible_ to write good, well-sourced, encyclopedic articles
on popular culture. On the other hand, I believe that such articles
should be held to exactly the same standards as any other Wikipedia
article, including deletion of material that cannot be sourced after
sources have been requested and the requests have been outstanding
for a reasonable length of time.