Deletion of Air Force One in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Comment: Listing every single mention of this plane is clearly #INFO|indiscriminate info ("oh look, I spotted the plane in some episode of ''24''"). There has to be multiple, |reputable sources that acknowledges every mention of the plane and not just the show/song/book. For example, there's multiple, reliable sources asserting that the press dubbed the term "Blair Force One", but there can never me multiple, reputable sources that do the same thing for the other mentions (apart from the show/song/book itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:RS)

Comment: While it's rubbish at the minute that is no reason to delete it. We have lots of rubbish articles. There is potentially material for an article here, even if a fairly trivial one. And please note that '' is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BHTT)

Comment: Speedy keep is always an option, per , when consensus for it exists.  Clearly it doesn't here, but it was a reasonable suggestion at the time the editor made it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: I see your #DIR, Jay32183, and raise you #INFO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: as it stands, this article is pretty clearly |original research - the sources are all primary. If an article such as this were a digest of ''secondary'' sources discussing aspects of the topic (Air Force One in popular culture), then it's valid by policy; if it's a catalogue of incidence, then it's not. I'm not saying delete because I find it hard to believe that this article couldn't be written the right way
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: note that |speedy keep is not a valid option. This article is a #DIR|collection of loosely associated items, collecting appearances of AF1 and of things that are called AF1 but are not AF1 and of things that in some way resemble AF1 but are again not AF1. This collection tells us nothing about AF1, nothing about the fiction which contains appearances of AF1, nothing about the real-world context of AF1. There is no encyclopedic value in a list of "in such-and-such TV show AF1 appeared." The only noteworthy appearance of AF1 in popular culture is the film of that name and it already has an article. And I'm sorry, but "keep because otherwise people will put garbage in other articles" is not a |valid argument for keeping. It is never acceptable to create a garbage dump article for the purpose of keeping garbage out of another article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:CSK||WP:NOT||WP:BHTT)

Comment: Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails #DIR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)