Deletion of List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination)

Comment: The justification offered by Axel Titanium for deleting this is "these lists are not appropriate content on Wikipedia. It seems they have corresponding categories that duplicate the functionality of this list as well." Neither of these are reasons to delete and general references to  do not make them so. Numerous editors have asserted that these lists are appropriate and Axel has shot them down by referring to policy and demanded they justify why these lists should be kept. In fact it is Axel's job to justify why they should be deleted and he has not done so
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: Seeing the other AfD the category :Category:Fictional characters who use magic seems to do the job just fine. This article also fails per , the only way I can see this article being kept is if it were renamed to something like List of Notable fictional magic users, but then a criteria would have to be placed to see who would qualify
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: all but '''keep''' list of fictional parasites, per comments above, and because wikipedia is not a repository of eveything that exists, and these lists don't even meet  as they aren't verifiable and problaby consist of wp:OR|original research. This is not true however for the parasites list and it should be treated separately from to the other three
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and . I'm not accepting the arguments that these cross-categorizations are encyclopaedic. There are too many fictional characters in notable works who use magic for this list to reach any feasible level of completion, and for categorizing characters which meet the general notabiilty guideline, a category would arguably preferable, although I am aware that these lists were created due to the categories being deleted as overly arbitary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: while many types of reference lists are more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia (except where  applies) lists of this nature are not in line with the guidelines nor should Wikipedia be including all these lists. Kind of hinting at the idea of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: could not find third-party sources to . The focus of these lists are a topic of |original research and represent an |unencyclopedic cross-categorization
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOTDIR||WP:verify notability)

Comment: fictional magic users, telekinesis and superhuman speeds; '''keep''' fictional parasites.  The first three clearly fail  and .  I don't think we can say the same about the parasite article though
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:IINFO)