I'm pretty sure nothing really should bother me, but it does. It makes me rage and hate Wikipedia mods with passion. Much of the "established knowledge" is bullshit quotes from the bullshit books that don't itself have any source references, yet obvious observations that require only basic calculations or are easily verifiable otherwise often "require citation". There are thousands of articles on some silly stuff like Harry Potter book characters & fantasy items, yet immensely notable music bands known to pretty much everyone listening to some "not too mainstream" genre are being deleted because they "lack notability". (A disclaimer: especially offensive cases of this kind of event weren't articles written by me, but, on the contrary, stuff I tried to learn about looking for it on Wikipedia, so it sure was notable enough to a user of Wikipedia, not only to an author of that article.)
I am not against all these "Star Wars timeline" articles, by the way (although, I wish fantasy worlds with big enough fandom would have their own "sub-wiki", just so they have their own "namespace" referenced from the "general" wikipedia, so that some magical beast wouldn't be squatting on the name that is actually shared with some creature from the actual folklore, several geographic objects and a dozen of music bands). It just makes me angry how some people are eager to "keep wikipedia tidy and organized" by deleting actually important real-world stuff (often justified by "storing data is expensive"), while they obsess over listing all possible Pokemons on wikipedia or some shit like that.
Now, this is only remotely related with the topic, which I agree is a serious and complicated issue, since we don't want to mix up random people fantasies with actually verified and established facts we could refer to. But the overall spirit of the issue I believe is the same, since in this particular case the subject seems to be explored by the author well enough, and people that protect wikipedia by keeping this kind of "original research" away may be right in some sense, but still are a problem I wish could be resolved somehow. (I don't know how, though.)
The issue of notability of different categories of articles will always be a point of contention for online encyclopaedias. That you argue so passionately for the reduction of one category of content (fictional Harry Potter characters), but the increase in another (music bands) shows that, I believe.
As music evolves away from big album releases at major record labels, these rules will probably evolve with them. But even now, these 'music bands known to pretty much everyone listening to some "not too mainstream" genre' can be notable if there are non-trivial articles about them in the media, even if they have no traditional album releases and haven't won any awards.
I am not against all these "Star Wars timeline" articles, by the way (although, I wish fantasy worlds with big enough fandom would have their own "sub-wiki", just so they have their own "namespace" referenced from the "general" wikipedia, so that some magical beast wouldn't be squatting on the name that is actually shared with some creature from the actual folklore, several geographic objects and a dozen of music bands). It just makes me angry how some people are eager to "keep wikipedia tidy and organized" by deleting actually important real-world stuff (often justified by "storing data is expensive"), while they obsess over listing all possible Pokemons on wikipedia or some shit like that.
Now, this is only remotely related with the topic, which I agree is a serious and complicated issue, since we don't want to mix up random people fantasies with actually verified and established facts we could refer to. But the overall spirit of the issue I believe is the same, since in this particular case the subject seems to be explored by the author well enough, and people that protect wikipedia by keeping this kind of "original research" away may be right in some sense, but still are a problem I wish could be resolved somehow. (I don't know how, though.)