Deletion of List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (third nomination)

Comment: Still has the same problems. The article has been constructed completely from primary sources, using a variety of (trivial) references to attempt to demonstrate cultural impact. This constitutes |synthesis, which is completely unacceptable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I have added 4 |RS to the article. The opening paragraph is completely sourced and asserts that both the book and the movie have had a huge influence on popular culture, and pop culture references them frequently. This makes the article pass , because the topic as a whole is notable and verifiable. Now to the WP:NOT#TRIVA and #DIR issues. I've added some context to the "films" section to explain why the film was influential. Naming films that reference ''A Clockwork Orange'' within this context allows the article to pass WP:NOT because the reason these articles are listed has been explained at the start of the section. I could only spare half an hour to find sources, but I hope I have shown that RS are indeed available that make the connection between a part of pop culture and ''A Clockwork Orange''. A couple of points already have two sources, eg ''Reservoir Dogs''. A very few primary references are OK for the article, eg the band Moloko is of course a cultural reference to ''A Clockwork Orange''. Unreferenced parts should indeed go, but that is not a reason to delete the entire article. A foundation is needed to build the type of article that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: WP:NOT#DIR|still a directory of loosely associated topics. This collection of...stuff...that makes some trivial reference to the novel or film, or that in the |unreferenced opinion of some random editor might possibly bear some similarity to something from the novel or film, tells us nothing about the novel or film, nothing about the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, nothing about any relationship between them (for there is none) and nothing about the world. Anything that's been around for a while is going to accumulate a selection of references to it in other media. That doesn't mean that a laundry list trivia dump of "ooh, Clockwork Orange thingy!" references makes for an encyclopedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)