I'm on board with the more information side and am not a deletionist but this is an adversarial environment with few resources.
Essentially, for all us inclusionists, very few of us will actively help curate Wikipedia to remove spam.
This is why Blastoise is a safer topic than the Charles Reed Professor of Futurism at Salesforce University. There is no adversary who is attempting to promote Blastoise and consequently it is safer to include.
The greater the outside incentive to popularization, the less inclusionist we must be if we want to preserve a non-spam WP.
But maybe we don't want to do that. And to be honest, I don't know why not. Perhaps it's okay for Wikipedia to have an article on Rene Wiltord, a software engineer in the high frequency trading space, etc etc
Anyway, the few articles I sampled appear to be quite complete so I'm not going to hate. Ultimately, there's still lots of stuff not on Wikipedia so I feel positively about this.
Essentially, for all us inclusionists, very few of us will actively help curate Wikipedia to remove spam.
This is why Blastoise is a safer topic than the Charles Reed Professor of Futurism at Salesforce University. There is no adversary who is attempting to promote Blastoise and consequently it is safer to include.
The greater the outside incentive to popularization, the less inclusionist we must be if we want to preserve a non-spam WP.
But maybe we don't want to do that. And to be honest, I don't know why not. Perhaps it's okay for Wikipedia to have an article on Rene Wiltord, a software engineer in the high frequency trading space, etc etc
Anyway, the few articles I sampled appear to be quite complete so I'm not going to hate. Ultimately, there's still lots of stuff not on Wikipedia so I feel positively about this.