Deletion of List of references to Lost in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Comment: Indiscriminate list of loosely associated terms, fails #DIR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Out of retirement to speak on this topic (again). Those who cite , sometimes seem to miss the first paragraph, meta:Wikipedia is not paper, whose meta-article points out: "''The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page (long articles require many sub-headings anyway)... As a more general example: Acme, an overview;     Physical description of acme;  Relationship with zeta; '''Acme in popular culture.''' These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long..''"   There is an entire category of :Category:In_popular_culture|In popular culture articles. This particular article's contents are, for the most part, notable and cited. So long as it is kept pruned to verifiable material, it is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia standards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: another "ooh, look, the numbers!" compilation of trivial references. The items from which the references are drawn have #DIR|no relationship to one another beyond the fleeting reference to Lost. This tells us nothing about Lost, the fiction from which the references are drawn, or the real world. The sole item that's worth a mention is the lottery item, and that can be housed quite comfortably in the main article or in the article for the episode in which the numbers first appear
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)