Deletion of List of fictional monarchs

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 monarchs, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think 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: I called for a speedy keep above but instead it was relisted even though were no delete !votes; tsk.  For avoidance of doubt, let's be clear that my position is that we should keep this per policies such as  and .  Now that we have an actual delete !vote, let's consider its claim that "''Category is enough...''".    This argument that we should delete the list because we have an :Category:Fictional royalty|equivalent category is contrary to our guideline  which states "''It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:NOTDUPE)