Deletion of List of catgirls

Comment: Clearly #INFO|indiscriminate; a category is somewhat appropriate for individual character articles, but aside from that, this is an exercise in |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOR)

Comment: The list performs the usual purpose of assisting navigation and so seems quite proper per .  This function is analagous to an index in a paper reference book and these are usually thought indispensable for a good reference work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment:  isn't policy. It's '''advice''' to editors before nominating an article. At best, it as guideline status. However, AfD can't be closed as Keep on the bases that an editor ignored 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Farix has this right. This is an |indiscriminate list.  Also seems to be put together with |original research.  The list is doomed to these from its outset because of its |overly broad topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:OR||WP:SALAT)

Comment: of flawed nom, one that violates POLICY () and Guideline () by ignoring them before making the nomination. You don't Ignore the rules unless it improves wikipedia. And further, to state "This list contributes nothing to the sum total of human knowledge" is diametrically opposed to the entire purpose of why wiki is here. Perhaps this list will not increase the nom's knowledge, but a number of editors who have actually contibuted to the article might seem to indicate that the "knowledge" is notable to them and worth inclusion in a paperless encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Completely indiscriminite |OR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)