Deletion of Klaatu barada nikto

Comment: One thing I came across (and I'm done, I promise).  Under , "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  'Significant coverage' means that '''sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.''' Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." (Bolding is mine.)  Furthermore, the note for that particular passage says, "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. '''The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial.'''"  (Bolding is mine again.) This is in line with my argument -- passing mentions are trivial, but entities like the Star Wars characters appear non-trivial.  Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: A rather discriminate list that amply serves its intended purpose. Yet another misreading of #DIR, which states '''"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..."''' and every single one of these quotes is a direct reference to the phrase that is the subject of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: yet another #IINFO|indiscriminate list serving as a #DIR|directory of loosely-associated topics. The list brings together items from across every medium, genre and style to unite subjects that have no relation to each other whatsoever than the script writer included a three-word phrase
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

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

Comment: This is a monument to ... well, something or other that's very nice. And we really should have more of those on Wikipedia. And if Gort ever comes back, we're gonna need this one. I believe  is fulfilled in all its majesty if we keep this one, which is something we ought to do every now and then, and it really would be nice to have this article around. I rest my case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: as per  an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)