Deletion of Wikipedia in culture (2nd nomination)

Comment: per others above who've put it better than I could have, especially JoshuaZ and HatlessAtlas. The list we have here is eminently useful, sourced, relevant, and discriminate. Where good content is too lengthy to reasonably fit into the article of a notable subject, a topical split like this is one way to resolve that. If Wikipedia were the ''only'' subject with an article like this, I'd worry about , but looking at :Category:In popular culture this is clearly far from alone. Consensus at the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in culture appears to remain relevant. One point, though, just to focus things: I think this is less about whether to keep/delete, and more about whether this page should be hosted in the main or Wikipedia namespace, as the page is obviously useful to us one way or another. &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: First of all, there's no fundamental problem with trivia. The problem is poorly sourced trivia, and this is well-sourced. Second, I can easily give examples of articles which are not currently cited in Wikipedia in culture that are secondary, reliable sources that discuss precisely this. For example, here is http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2232893820071022?sp=true Reuter's article. Other relevant articles include http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-webscout30sep30,0,344107.story which discusses how Wikipedia covers pop culture extensively. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/04/wikipedia_popular_among_educated_and_wealthy/ this one shows the demographics of people who read Wikipedia. All of these could easily be used in the article proper. Moreover,  is a style guide, it in no way says we can't have articles that discuss Wikipedia. What it prohibits are things like on the Siegenthaler page saying and "this page was vandalized" as opposed to "Siegenthaler's Wikipedia page was vandalized." The original research claim holds no water since the mentions in question are mainly explicit mentions of the word "Wikipedia" and thus require no synthesis (unlike many trivia lists where one needs to get a joke or reference
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR)

Comment: Essentially, this article consists of documenting every mention of Wikipedia in popular culture (or at least the majority of such mentions), which strikes me as inappropriate content for an encyclopaedia article. It's mainly of interest to ''Wikipedians'' like ourselves, rather than the average reader; it also raises issues of |self-reference and |systemic bias, in that we don't have '...in popular culture' articles that are anywhere near as detailed as this one about other subjects. While a more tightly-focused article on Wikipedia's impact on culture (which ''is'' encyclopaedic) would be acceptable, this is not that article; to be blunt, it's not really an article at all. As such, in its current state - which boils down to listing every time someone, somewhere said the word 'Wikipedia' or made a comic about it - it is inappropriate, and should be moved from article-space
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR||WP:BIAS)