Deletion of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references (2nd nomination)

Comment: as totally |indiscriminate, irrelevant list of OR and |trivia. Nothing but trifling Hitchhiker's Guide references
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: An important work it's true, and there might well be scope for an article about its influence. However, one can't merely compile a list of barely related factoids and claim them as evidence of its influence - that would be |original research, specifically a |synthesis. An article which began with something like "HHGttG is a very influential series of books (reference)" and then launched into a laundry list of trivia would be scarcely better. Rather, it would be necessary to find |sources which discuss the book's influence, and then provide a meaningful discussion of the topic, perhaps with reference to some of the examples cited by the sources. In short this isn't even the beginning of a good article. It can't be salvaged by pruning the worst of the trivia or adding a couple of references. It would have to be rewritten from scratch, and probably renamed as well, to be of any encyclopaedic value
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYN||WP:RS)

Comment: another #DIR|directory of loosely associated topics. Yes, the books are very popular and many people enjoyed reading them and including in-jokes and references to them. That does not mean that an ever-expanding list of every time someone includes the number 42 or a phrase from the book or any of the rest of it constitutes an encyclopedic examination of the cultural impact of the books. "In such-and-such movie so-and-so said dicky bird" doesn't tell us one thing about such-and-such movie, so-and-so or dicky bird. (By the way, I swiped "dicky bird" from a Star Trek novel; someone better go add that to an article about the cultural impact of Star Trek novels on cranky Wikipedia editors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: although titled differently, this is little different than the popular culture articles, but at least this has the honesty in title to say what it is: a list of citations (unsourced). Such a list on its own is not encyclopedic, as part of an article about something which has a notable role in popular culture, maybe.  However, alas, there are apparently no es that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable, like most of these it is  and  as in see look at all these allusions to, quotes about, tributes, etc. so it must be. Well if it really ''is'', find some es to show that. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book, but this is an encyclopedia not a fan site
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS)

Comment: as , |original research, and difficult to maintain
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:OR)