`:::Keep (I'm pasting here in slightly abbreviated form what I wrote at the Opera Project talk page earlier today) I totally agree with . The resonance of artistic works beyond their original context and audience is an important cultural phenomenon. Opera cartoons (especially classics like the ones mentioned in this article), parodies, and even Seinfeld are often referenced in 'serious' opera reviews, and by opera houses and other cultural organizations themselves. I know of at least one American opera house administrator who says that The Rabbit of Seville was his introduction to opera when he was 7 years old and he's never looked back. Here are just a few examples:  :::* http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=16374  :::* http://www.dallasopera.org/the_season/060702-index.php  :::* http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17854152  :::* http://www.operaamerica.org/audiences/learningcenter/intro/mainstream.shtml  :::In my view the existence of parody and/or use in popular culture is an indication of a work's importance, not demeaning or an insult to some kind of 'sacred' art form. I've written in a similar vein here. These kinds of sections just have to be watched to ensure that the other genres and works making the reference are in themselves reasonably high profile. It's true that monitoring to remove tangential and/or spurious references makes for more work, but  a blanket ban and summary removal of outside cultural references can be a net loss to the article. It helps to discourage inane listcruft if the section is written as prose not a simple list. And giving it a section title like ``Cultural resonance outside opera`` or ``The Barber of Seville elsewhere`` rather than using the terms 'trivia' or 'pop culture' also helps. When unsure of the cultural notability or relevance of some additions, or if the list becomes too long, it should not be summarily removed but transferred to the talk page (apart from obviously uninformative/silly mentions) where future editors can be requested to integrate the material into the text of the article. The trivia-adders tend to back off when you do that.  Here's how I handled it in Cavalleria rusticana. There's been no 'trouble' with that article since then. Best,     `