Deletion of Eco-terrorism in fiction

Comment: per TTN. The list is vague and overbroad, and completely unsourced. Even if we were to add some sources, we would need to remove the  list and effectively |start over from scratch. Would not object to this topic being re-created as an article about the concept, instead of an indiscriminate list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:TNT)

Comment: Like with Far future in fiction, the topic is notable, but this is an indiscriminate list with no salvageable content. I.e., 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Thank you for editing and for understanding the issues here. The difference between Climate of London and List of rainy days in London gets at the standard we should apply here. One is a encyclopedic article and the other is a list of arbitrary |original research. I'm hesitant to call a  during an AFD satisfactory, because it's very easy for people to ignore consensus and revert this the moment that no one is looking. But that's not a slight against you personally and I want to |assume good faith of other editors out there so that we can move forward. The new article does have a better scope now and we won't have any issues if it stays that way as it expands. I'd ask that the closing admin note that there is a consensus to '''rewrite''' this, even if the rewrite has already been done. (Or if you're fine with that I'll close it myself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:TNT||WP:AGF)

Comment: the article by Lawrence Buell and the Darlington chapter linked by Andrew Davidson are sufficient to satisfy . Michael Ziser's chapter in https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Terrorism_and_Narrative_Practice/Zv2ARCzJsLoC ''Terrorism and Narrative Practice'' is also likely to be useful, as is Marta Puxan-Oliva's https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780429453342/chapters/10.4324/9780429453342-44 chapter in ''The Routledge Companion to Crime Fiction'', which cites Buell, though I don't have access to the latter. I agree that this should be a prose article rather than a list of examples, but it's a notable topic whichever way it's written (and, credit to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Listing works of fiction wherein a particular plot point appears is what TV Tropes does. I agree with the nominator and those arguing in favour of deletion that the list was , though the topic is suitable for a prose article. To this end, I have edited the article such that instead of looking {{oldid2|990090245|like this}}, it looks {{oldid2|990703085|like this}} instead. Since these two versions are not in any meaningful way the same article—though they both share the title Eco-terrorism in fiction—this is effectively the same thing as a  delete and do-over from scratch (except the edit history hasn't been deleted); the current prose article is to the previous list article as Climate of London is to List of rainy days in London. I think this should be a satisfactory solution to all involved based on the comments so far. Pinging {{ping|Jontesta|TTN|Shooterwalker|LaundryPizza03}} would you care to weigh in on this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:TNT)

Comment: per {{quote|The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question...}}When one makes such a search, sources seem easy to find.  For example, ''https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4262048/1275004626-What%20Is%20Called%20Ecoterrorism.pdf What Is Called Ecoterrorism''; ''https://www.asle.org/calls-for-contributions/crime-fiction-and-ecology/ Crime Fiction and Ecology''; ''https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/British_Terrorist_Novels_of_the_1970s/tYpWDwAAQBAJ British Terrorist Novels of the 1970s – Environmentalists and Conservationists: Terrorising the Countryside''; &c
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: In its current, revised state.  When I initially saw this AFD yesterday, my initial thought was the same as the Nom.  While the actual topic was probably notable, the fact that the current article was completely comprised of unsourced information meant that it should not be kept due to simple reasons of  - we simply cannot keep unsourced information on the encyclopedia.  However, it seems that since then
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)