Deletion of List of games containing time travel

Comment: Passes . The list provide useful information about games containing time travel. We have categories like :Category:Time travel video games and :Category:Video games with time travel. However, this list can provide citations and details which categories cannot provide
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: per , but I don't see any consensus either way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: The list doesn't need much in the way of sources because it is a list of blue-links to articles which explain that the game in question contains time travel.  This is normal for such lists.  The supposed POV problems are not specified and I'm not seeing it since it is crystal clear that a game such as Chrononauts contains time travel.   is irrelevant since this is a list whose primary purpose is to assist navigation to and between articles about notable topics.   is likeiwise irrelevant because editors can verify the entries by going to the detailed articles which is where the sources are best placed.  So, the complaints of the nomination are all empty and so there is no good reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: and thanks to the two above keepers, regardless of how this turns out, I had given up). I'm with Micow and Colonel Warden here: this is a way of organizing notable topics, and has no verifiability problems (beyond giving a 1983 video game as the first time-travelling one and that's just one line). It's a long-standing convention, Wikipedia:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|accepted in the three principles, that noncontroversial descriptions about a work may be sourced to the primary source of the work itself. It's vitally necessary as well: Have you ever tried writing an article about ''Romeo and Juliet'' without consulting the play at all, and restricting yourself to third parties' descriptions about the play? Me neither, and I'd rather not start. We could always shore up the article by adding quotes from the games, their manuals and where applicable their references, but that's not a necessity. Mentioned POV problems don't seem evident without further specification and anyway are an editing matter, not a deletion matter, unless they're fundamentally insurmountable a la Reasons why jews did WTC or something.The list is a surprisingly valuable navigation tool about a major concept. The two categories do ''not'' contain the same information and do not make the list redundant for the reasons described by Stormie, not to mention because it's the only way for readers to check if a particular method of time travel, an implementation of time travel in gameplay, or a space-time model has been done or is widespread without reading several dozen articles. It is also the kind of thing that's Wikipedia's particular strength: no similar list is readily, if at all, available elsewhere online. This is not to plead |usefulness, but it is valuable and should not be handled too lightly.Finally, this was made by a new user who did not do it prim and proper and could not be expected to be able to. There has been no effort to improve it or discussion about how to do so (I was busy with other matters, alas). The nominator has done neither and has not acknowledged the request for leaving a message before AfDing that I did leave sitting on the article's talk page. This seems like a shaky basis for deeming the article irredeemable. If it is not, I'd like to invite all concerned and interested editors who haven't spoken to suggest improvements on the article's talk page after this AfD is over
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL)