Deletion of Jeopardy! in popular culture (3rd nomination)

Comment: No |reliable sources. None of the popular culture references have anything to prove their |notability for being mentioned in an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if wiki isn't paper, it is OT|not a place for an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: because Wikipedia is ''not'' a #DIR|directory of loosely-associated topics.  Just about none of these entries, except for Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live), are made known as a result of ''Jeopardy!'' being mentioned.  This is clearly a case of indiscriminate trivia that has been |synthesized by editors to create a muddled topic.  Additionally, there is precedent for these kinds of popular culture articles that are mainly trivial listings of an entity's passing mention in the media
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:SYN)

Comment: per nom & ample precedent; unlike the few that we've kept, there seems to be no  to show that the adoption of Jeopardy! into popular culture is notable - the mere lists of cross references doesn't suffice. One could make a list 100 times longer at The word "the" in popular culture by citing any marginally notable thing that used the word "the"  from the obvious The The, The Who, The Beatles, to As the World Turns|As '''the''' World Turns, and every time some routine on some show uses the word "the" - it doesn't mean that there is sufficient notability for such an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per ; cultural significance can be better included at the main Jeopardy page. And
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The article used to be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeopardy%21_in_popular_culture&diff=113756813&oldid=108830357 much worse off than it is now. I thought my standards as I set in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! in popular culture (2nd nomination)|the previous nomination were strong enough to determine notability and define what should be included. Apparently they are not, even as nobody raised objections or clarification then. It's up to other editors to define a stricter standard and implement it. Most "in popular culture" articles are inevitably going to be lists of some sort, because they have the nature of pointing out examples. If referencing and lack of independent commentary on the subject is the problem, in order to strictly satisfy |verifiability, that is a valid problem to be corrected. After that's done, that may be a stronger reason to keep. But I disclose that I am not going to be the person to do that. If we continue with the current pattern of "in popular culture" articles on AfD, almost everything in :Category:In popular culture and its subcategories will eventually be nominated at some point. I do not wish to partake in such debates until consensus is shown: when either  is expanded to explicitly include such articles, or Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles is adopted as a content guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: per #PAPER and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:SS)