Deletion of List of The Simpsons couch gags (2nd nomination)

Comment: Honestly, I wouldn't miss this page. However, this is clearly a bad faith  nomination from THF because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags (which, by the way, he was vehemently opposed to deleting). In fact, he copied a quote directly from the billboard afd "Way time Simpsons stuff came in line with actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of constantly skating around with content that would be unacceptable for any other series" made by a different user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_The_Simpsons_billboard_gags&action=historysubmit&diff=341114454&oldid=341102009, which I find humorous because he didn't seem to care about that when the afd was for an article he created
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per . This article is why Wikipedia exists. Wikipedia should not be a mirror image of Encyclopædia Britannica, Wikipedia is SO much better than EB
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: I would certainly agree that the notion of the Simpsons couch gag itself is a notable part of American pop culture - but a list of individual Simpsons couch gags is unbelievably pedantic and trivial. Sources can confirm that the gags |exist, but very little more, and |mere existance does not warrant inclusion. "List of The Simpsons couch gags" is no more fit for inclusion than List of Puns Made by Groucho Marx in the Marx Brothers' Movies (or, to extend it a bit: List of Jumpsuit Colors Worn By Mystery Science Theater 3000 Hosts, or List of Grateful Dead Concerts With Dark Star In the Setlist). This is something that would be a much better fit on a Simpsons wiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITEXISTS||WP:ITEXISTS)

Comment: Secondary sourcing indicates the schtick is notable.  List criteria are explicit and nothing is amiss per .  As noted above, nothing has changed since the first AfD, although the nominator's honesty in attempting to "balance" Wikipedia coverage through deletion is appreciated
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN)

Comment: as article fulfilles ,  and per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: per .  The previous reasons still hold
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)