Deletion of List of fictional journalists (2nd nomination)

Comment: This fD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like Special:PermaLink/979987651|this into a prose article that looked like Special:PermaLink/991740265|this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something ''about'' concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. Reading just a few pages of the book linked by {{noping|Andrew Davidson}} amply proves that writing a prose article about journalism in fiction is perfectly feasible. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional journalists, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think, especially as this is a second nomination, that |"I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that |is not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:ATD)

Comment: Contains plenty of non-notable characters or characters from non-notable works, too inclusive. Category is enough, this is just fancruft list of trivia. The proper way to deal with such articles is to have a non-list Journalism in fiction, which may have a short subsection on the most notable fictional journalists, based on groupings in reliable sources. The book Andrew found suggests there is a potential to write something here, but the current list merits nothing but 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Here's a ''https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Journalist_in_British_Fiction_and_Fi/wbLbCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=fictional+journalists&printsec=frontcover book on the subject''.  See also ;  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE||WP:CLN)