Deletion of The Hollow Men in popular culture

Comment: to The Hollow Men#Influence in culture per , as a random (i.e., |originally researched) and almost entirely unsourced list of references and allusions, both substantial and trivial, with no explanation of the relevance or significance of the individual entries. Information on the ''Nachleben'' of Eliot's poem—written in prose and citing judiciously chosen examples that are supported by sources explaining their significance in the reception or interpretation of the poem—belongs in the article on the poem itself. (I'm continually surprised that the message of http://xkcd.com/446/ Randall Munroe's satire hasn't penetrated more deeply into Wikipedians' consciousness
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:OR)

Comment: per nominator who seems to have cut-and-paste my rationale for AFDing The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture earlier this week.  This is a mess of obscure references to mostly non-notable works a "me too" list of people who think they're cool and sound erudite because they've heard of Eliot. How many of them are just people mentioning "not with a bang, but with a whimper" to an audience too dumb and oblivious to know it? This isn't worth merging. It is the crufty epitome of useless |indiscriminate |trivia and needs to be deleted and not with a whimper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: per nominator. Crufty cruft cruft. |Trivia that should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)