Deletion of Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes

Comment: The main Sherlock Holmes article is already quite long.  It's reasonable and expected per  to split sections off into subarticles, such as this.  Sherlock Holmes and pop culture is a notable enough topic that there are |reliable sources available for this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY||WP:RS)

Comment: OR, violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: as an unencyclopedic #DIR|directory of |indiscriminate |trivia.  Purely consists of |original research; coverage of a fictional character's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples by the editors themselves
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IINFO||WP:AVTRIV||WP:OR)

Comment: Violation of  and, as already stated, Sherlock Holmes in other media exists for less trivial bits.  Most of this is indiscriminate trivia.  Besides, "Pop culture"?  Incredibly tacky
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Sherlock Holmes has in fact attained an extremely large place in popular culture in the 120 years since the first story was published. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles popular culture references should be spun off to a separate article if they make the main article too long. The Sherlock Holmes article is too long as is, at 77k. These entries are not loosely associated (they are fictional appearances of Holmes or his main villain Moriarity), not indiscriminate (all are closely related to Sherlock Holmes), and not trivial, and so the grounds proposed by the nominator  and other advocates of deletion do not apply. In any event, , labelled a guideline, is so disputed that it has had to be protected, not a ringing endorsement of its having consensus. The normal editing process can remove any entry which merely "has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase." It is not OR or unsourced to state that a CS Lewis book says "those days Mr Sherlock Holmes was still living in Baker Street ... " We do not need a second book stating what the first book says, or stating that a reference to Holmes is a reference to Holmes.  Deletion is inappropriate for something which genuinely has a major place in pop culture, as does Sherlock Holmes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)