Why do you create popular culture articles and then vote for their deletion? Isn't that bad faith?
No, it is not. Personally, I do not believe ordinary IPC information (of the "X appears in Y", uncited to an independent source variety) belongs in most articles. However, I recognize that some users, particularly new ones, like that kind of information. Therefore, in the spirit of compromise, I will often spin-out large IPC lists into separate articles. This prevents them from overwhelming one article, while still giving some users to express themselves.
Nominating such an article for deletion would be an act of bad faith; one might see that as an attempt to corral information to make it easier to destroy. Firstly, I do not believe that whether or not material belongs in Wikipedia should depend on where it is located. Secondly, I have no intention to ever nominate an article I've created for deletion (consider that a "campaign pledge"). However, when one such article is taken to AfD by another user, the issue is opened to the wider community. I feel comfortable expressing my own views there, knowing that it won't be forced on other users unless it matches with the consensus. If the article is chosen to be kept, then I generally will make no move to remove its content.
Why create omnibus articles?
I feel that omnibus articles (like Egyptian mythology in popular culture) are genuinely better at encapsulating how various mythologies and cultural systems are understood by modern cultures. By looking at a broader variety of topics, we can see broader patterns that are more informative than isolated appearances.
IPC articles are write-only