I wasn't trying to be funny, nor was I trying to say that it belonged in the article.
The problem isn't lack of source. It's more one of original research.
The problem is *not* original research. To summarise the events of an episode, film, book or the features of a piece of software, or the design of a famous building, is not original research.
The problem is the inclusion of inane trivia in articles where they won't benefit the reader. The average reader of [[Desmond Tutu]] will not learn anything about him because his name was mentioned in a popular television show.