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.