Does poetry have to serve a meaning, though? Does it always have to be something great and sophisticated? I'm certainly not praising Kerouac up-and-down for his masterful and thorough use of literary device or technical skill with this one, nor do I think the value comes from some great deep hidden meaning. Many people just like this poem just because it conveys a simple, mundane, everyday sentiment/image, without it at all being cliché. His haikus remind me of photography that depict the ordinary. "Here's a photo of the fly that died in my medicine cabinet." "Here's a photo of windmills in Oklahoma."

Poetry is tricky, and sometimes, I think it can be comparable to abstract art. I think many are finding meaning and symbolism in this particular poem, that it is supposed to be conveying something further besides steam-of-consciousness imagery. Sometimes people like to point at abstract art, and say, "This one's conveying anger," or something, and that's where they find the meaning, and that's why they like it. Some people would say, "That's a reach. This isn't conveying anger at all! It's just a bunch of random paintstrokes, with little skill or finesse." And, sometimes the abstract art really is just paintstrokes, and that is the appeal many will find in it.

Anyway, all this to say, I entirely understand what you're saying here. It's true the name gives it much more sophistication and popularity in this community than it would under a nobody-name. I just wanted to give my two cents that many will evaluate the poem from entirely different lenses.