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.