Deletion of Jeopardy! in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Comment: The spirit of #PAPER is harmonious with the concept of sensibly forking overlong articles into families of articles organized with categories and templates, which is how we've been trying to manage ''Jeopardy!'' topics on Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: certainly notable, #PAPER
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as per . The Jeopardy! article was too large, so it was split off into sections. Yes, the article does need to be pruned; but, in my opinion, if this article gets deleted,  needs to be completely revisited
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY||WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: In this case deletion review's overturning the first AfD doesn't mean that the article was/is good, only that its original AfD did not come to a consensus and was ended prematurely without sufficient numbers and by a potential misunderstanding of  on the part of its closing admin (as per his explanation which can now be found in his talk page archives).  My keep vote for this article can be found in the first AfD, and I hope that the arguments found there will be addressed in this AfD, and that arguments found here that duplicate those in the original AfD will not be given more weight simply because people have repeated them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I concur with the nomination.  A few examples are appropriate in the main article.  This is an unmaintainable and indiscriminate list.  |Encyclopedias are not wikt:category:Concordances|concordances
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: IA is an essay,  applies to article sections, and this article is not just a "list of isolated facts", but more like a list of lists of isolated facts, with each list in its own section, which is what articles are. Jeopardy! is a particularly notable show, enough to have picked up a variety of references from other notable shows during its time. This significance in popular culture warrants an article of it in popular culture. It is unsourced for the same reason most plot summaries are unsourced, though you can verify each item by perusing the specific work. Has there been some published study referring to Jeopardy! as an important cultural phenomenon? I don't know, but just look at this list with  SENSE. The grouping of these cultural references is not inherently . If you cite #IINFO, please explain why it does not belong on Wikipedia, as that policy says nothing about this particular article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so what is it about this article that makes Wikipedia more of an indiscriminate collection of information such as this? The article itself cannot be 'indiscriminate'; it has a definite scope and a maintainable size. It being 'trivial' only means it is useless to you, which is a purely subjective claim. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIV||WP:COMMON||WP:OR||WP:NOT)