Deletion of Wikipedia in culture

Comment: per  - previous AfD and sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: per , indiscriminate list of Wikipedia pop culture mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: #IINFO|indiscriminate collection of #DIR|non-associated items. The items on this list bear absolutely no relationship to each other past happening to have included the word "Wikipedia" in them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: There are plenty of secondary sources in this article which prove the notability of the topic. Even if the list itself violated policy it would be a travesty to delete the entire article because of it. However, the list doesn't violate policy. Claims of policy violation are based on misinterpretations of |no original research, which specifically allows citation of primary sources for making descriptive claims (and the fact that the nominator himself was able to verify the Sideshow Bob reference is proof alone that it is not original research); #DIR|loosely associated topics, which requires entries that are "associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic", which in this case they plainly do (no policy requires list entries to be associated with each other, despite Otto4711's assertions); and #IINFO|indiscriminate information, which specifically lists various types of articles which consensus has determine are not appropriate for the encyclopedia—lists of cultural references being nowhere to be found on that list, nor is there any evident wide consensus that they do not belong in the encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: as notable, well-sourced, useful per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)