geni wrote:
If popular culture/Trivia are so important why does [[Hurricane Katrina]] (to chose a random example) not include either word?
Maybe it's too recent a subject to have any material out there in pop culture to warrant such a section? Maybe there's enough material, but no editors have thought of adding it yet? Or they did, and it's scattered elsewhere in the article rather than being gathered into a section? Maybe it was already split off, or is in some more generic "major hurricanes in pop culture" article somewhere?
More important, though, is the question of why the absence of a pop culture section in any particular article is a reason why there shouldn't be one in any _other_ particular article. Once upon a time Wikipedia didn't have any articles about hurricanes at all but nobody objected on that basis when the first one got added (or if they did, they obviously had no effect).
Lets consdir the situation:
The problem: This article is to big and there is no obvious split Solution. Remove stuff while doing the minium posible damage to the article.
That tends to result in the popular culture/trivia section being the first to go.
If there's such a big "pop culture" section in the article, how can you claim that there's no obvious split solution? Take the text you've just highlighted for deletion and copy and paste it into a new article instead. Easy and obvious. Deleting it may not "damage" the article itself any worse than splitting it off would, but it does damage Wikipedia as a whole more.
I suppose I must be a rabid inclusionist or something because I simply can't understand why you'd rather delete a section like this than split it off into a child article.