Deletion of Lord of the Flies in popular culture

Comment: This is '''not indiscriminate information''' per #IINFO as Dugwiki has noted above.  Nor would I say that it is indiscriminate per the common definition of the term; there is a clear discriminating criterion, namely, reference to LOTF.  Also, this is '''not unsourced''': it is sourced by primary sources.  For instance, the reference to LOTF in ''Hook (film)'' is sourced by the film itself.  However, despite the fact that a nomination based merely in the vague accusation of "cruft" is just begging for a "Strong keep", this article violates  and should not remain as a stand-alone article.  Most of the entries in the article are merely passing mentions, but some are more significant.  Per
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:TRIV)

Comment: per , completely unsourced: possibly , and, yes per #IINFO. Just a glorified plot summary, which NOT prohibits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:OR||WP:NOT)