Deletion of List of fictional kangaroos and wallabies

Comment: One doesn't need to even look at the list to know that characters like Kanga, Roo and Skippy are notable and make a reasonable basis for a list.  I forget the name of Tank Girl's sidekick but he'll be in there too and many more.  The ostensible argument that this is redundant to the category is explicitly refuted by .  As for sources, this is feeble wikilawyering.  If some entry needs a source then tag it with a {{tl|fact}} tag.  Bringing the entire list of AFD is disproportionate disruption contrary to |our deletion policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLS||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN)

Comment: per discussions like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_weasels, which establish that |directories of fictional whatevers need to prove they can stand on their own just like any other article- there's no |inheriting notability from one or two of the individual things on the list that might be notable on their own. A good rough rule to follow is to ask yourself, "If we chopped the words 'List of' from the front of the title, do we get an encyclopedic topic?". That experiment has been Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Weasels in fiction|tried already with things like this, and shown not to be feasible
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:INHERIT)

Comment: per CLN.  If it's encyclopedic as a category, it's encyclopedic as a list.  The claim above that this is a fictional kangaroo "directory" is further evidence of how poorly understood  is.  Really?  It should go right on the shelf next to my telephone directory?  NOTDIR is about ''that'' kind of directory; exhaustive, real world directories of people and services without regard to notability, like a legal professionals directory.  As written, it's clearly meant to prevent the flooding of lists with non-notable entries (List of people from New York City should not list ''every'' person who lives there and duplicate the phone book) or non-encyclopedic information (List of law firms in New York should not include telephone numbers and mailing addresses).   #1 and #6 are the only parts of  that apply at all to indexing lists, and #1 basically just tells us some lists are encyclopedic and others aren't, and #6 warns against trivial cross-categorization of unrelated facts, which doesn't apply here because this list is just a ''categorization'', not a ''cross''-categorization.  Obviously a lot of people want to use it to delete lists they don't like, but it just doesn't stretch that far, and  just becomes a |another acronym to vomit out to give the appearance of having a policy-grounded argument, without adding anything substantive to the discussion.  This list functions as an ''index'' of Wikipedia articles by a shared fact.  Wikipedia ''is'', in part, a "directory" of its own contents.  Whether that shared fact is worth documenting in a list is a valid question, but as I noted, if it's conceded that it would make a proper category, then it can't be simultaneously argued that the list is unencyclopedic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTDIR||WP:VAGUEWAVE)