Deletion of Capoeira in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Comment: as a breakout of the main page; Question: Per a search here on "in popular culture" it appears that many of these types of articles have been redirected back to their main articles (e.g., Kilroy was here in popular culture) and many still exist (e.g., Zombies in popular culture). Is there some sort of precedent or style guide for these or is it the usual "when do you fork-for-length" judgement call? I think the info. should be kept as encyclopedic (and don't think there's a  issue; for the cases where there is, cull the offending item), but I don't know what the best format for this info. is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: I concur with Stifle. As a topic, the appearance of Capoeira in popular culture isn't likely to be notable and isn't evidenced as such in the article except as a |synthesis.  As for the content, most of it is an |indiscriminate listing of details that don't even have to do with Capoeira.  This article isn't about a single subject but rather a multitude of different subjects loosly drawn together through original research to claim that it is Capoeira.  There's really nothing to merge back into the original article, as the few cited statements fall under different subjects entirely, such as Kickboxer 4, a gay porn studio, Hellboy II, and Paul Simon. This is what happens when articles don't stick to a strict, defined, and notable subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:IINFO)

Comment: It seems that it might be enough for an article, but finding more and |better cites may be difficult
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: as a  spinout of Capoeira--merging it back into the article would make the original article unwieldy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)