Deletion of John Keats in Popular Culture

Comment: disregarding the |current ugly mess, it does list many significant references to Keats' work.  These are the standards I see as developing for "X in pop culture" articles - (1) Are there ''several possible'' |reliable sources pointing out that X has appeared or been used by popular culture? and (2) Do those sources mention that connection in a significant way?  I think the answer is in the affirmative for both questions here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY||WP:RS)

Comment: per nom and per . This article is impractical, and the most notable bits should be merged into the main article (if they haven't been already
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: simply a  collection of references to Keats
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per , unless sources can be cited that expressly treat the topic of the article. (Though it's not per se a reason for deletion, the article also seems to make no distinction between specifically popular-culture references and other sorts of references
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: Per DGG. Also, nomination doesn't cite any policy-based reason and the argument that calls  smells unfortunately of . It is a popular culture split article like anything else; nothing indiscriminate, or failing policy, and easily sourceable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)