Deletion of Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination)

Comment: So it turns out that specialist viewpoints of the "math community" is |"I like it", and to confuse this subject with that of infinite monkey theorem. Yet another random list of factoids. A simple paragraph or two in infinite monkey theorem, explaining its actual impact, should suffice, and unless concrete evidence emerges that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: This is a |notable popular culture meme and deserves an article in Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is essentially a list, but not one which identifiably serves the #Purpose_of_lists|purposes of lists on Wikipedia.  I reckon that if any of the entries are sufficiently notable, they can be absorbed by the culture section in Infinite monkey theorem
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: nn topic, total trivial fork.  We need to make overview articles, not include every thing that has ever happened.  This is total cruft.  Violates various aspects of  and turns this place into a total joke
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The first AFD result was arrived at correctly.  The page can and should be edited—anything important or non-trivial on it should be edited into the main article and this page should be deleted.  In particular, mention of a ''New Yorker'' story that was reprinted by Newman should go in the main article, not ghettoized in a "... in popular culture" page.  These "in popular articles" are most often a bad idea and non-encyclopedic ''unless'' the the ''effect or significance'' of the subject on popular culture has been studied and has  sources.  Sure, the infinite monkey theorem has appeared in pop culture a lot.  What is needed are  reliable sources that examine what these mentions tell us about pop culture or the theorem.  This requires ''secondary sources'', not ''primary sources''.  The ''Foxtrot'' comic strip is a reference to the fact that the theorem was used in that strip, but that primary source alone doesn't make an article unless a reference can be found that describes the significance of the theorem's appearance in a comic strip
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: because Wikipedia is #DIR|not a directory of loosely-associated entries.  The article fails to make any claim of E|notability through ''|independent, secondary sources'' to reflect the phenomenon's impact in popular culture.  The information is not |verifiable in providing any real-world context about each occurrence.  "1989 - In the comic strip Dilbert, Dogbert tells Dilbert that his poem would take 'three monkeys, ten minutes'." ''So what?''  What does this provide in an encyclopedic sense?  Look at this http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2002/ii02-101.pdf PDF that I found: "The Internet is home to a vast assortment of quotations and experimental designs concerning monkeys and typewriters. They all expand on the theory often attributed to Henri Poincaré which contends that if an infinite number of monkeys were left to bang on an infinite number of typewriters, sooner or later they would accidentally reproduce the complete works of William Shakespeare (or even just one of his sonnets)."  ''This'' is the kind of content that needs to reflect this subject, and depending on how much of this significant coverage of the topic is available, the content should be included at Infinite monkey theorem until it needs to be spun off per .  Listing random mentions is just not encyclopedic, and there needs to be real-world context behind it to qualify for Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTE||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:SS)

Comment: As with many (though not all) IPC articles, the contents of this article clearly warrant its notability and special meaning independent of traditional wiki-guidelines. Any article can be called a collection of loosely associated information -- look at the George W Bush|Bush article for instance, which talks about Bush the cheerleader and then goes on to detail his position on social security. Policies like  were not meant to apply to all of 2 million+ unique articles; that's why we have . If the contents of the article are substantially notable (keeping in mind that  has no application to article contents, so we have to use a bit of ), and they are meaningfully connected to a common theme (Inf. monkey theorem IPC), then that topic is notable whether or not someone has written a book with an identical title
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:IGNORE||WP:N||WP:SENSE)

Comment: a polite request to not close this per  until everyone has had a chance to contribute to the discussion.  says: ''"If properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, popular culture articles can attain quality and be a quality part of a topic."'' I intend to edit the article to provide the necessary sources (secondary source talking about the cultural phenomenom, not primary sources to examples of the phenomenon), and to bring the article in line with policies and guidelines. This will hopefully demonstrate what might be possible. This will likely invalidate most of the delete votes above and below, which is unfortunate, but I think editing an article to improve it is better than deletion. fD says: ''"If you wish for an article to be kept, you can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out references, and diffuse the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin."'' Possibly there will be insufficient content once the editing has finished, in which case a merge of what remains may be the best solution. I intend to start the editing tomorrow, and invite those participating in the debate to contribute. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:IPC||WP:A)

Comment: Based on what you say, I did look again, but I guess I'm not seeing what you mean? The article isn't a general discussion of the thing's impact on popular culture, and I can't find anything that ''does'' discuss the impact of this on popular culture. The only sources I see are basically the "sourcing" of mentions to a primary source. If there were any source which ''actually discusses'' this concept in relation to pop culture, I'd change to keep in a second, but right now it looks like a short |original research intro followed by "It appeared here, and here, and here, and...". If a pop culture article is composed of more than half bullet points or other form of laundry list, and there aren't any sources listed that ''discuss'' the thing's impact on popular culture, it's generally unimprovable and a trivia collection
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Weak '''delete''', 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)