Deletion of List of hookers with hearts of gold

Comment: to Hooker with a heart of gold and source (was Keep and clean  up: (was Delete).  Hilarious list, but |unverifiable by any |reliable source.  See also the Wikipedia:List_guideline#References_for_list_Items|relevant section of the list guideline, which reiterates that list membership must be established by reliable sources.  (Didn't we delete a list of Mary Sues recently?  I can't find it, but I can't remember the exact page title to do a log search
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. Tag for , though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Funny, but not supported by : "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed... Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit." If any of these entries can actually find a source (any of the currently 71 entries all of which are unsourced) can find a secondary source so it is not just Wikipedia contributors saying that these character are hookers with a heart of gold, then they can be added to the main article (assuming the main article can find a source to describe what a "hooker with a heart of gold" is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: I don't see how this list can possibly work.  Is it going to include anyone who has ever been referred to as a "hooker with a heart of gold" in a reliable source?  If so, then the list is too big -- it will include people like Divine Brown (sex worker)|Divine Brown (See ''Feminism, Media, and the Law'', p. 11 ("Here, the proverbial 'hooker with a heart of gold' ended up with a small pot of it as well"), despite the fact that Ms. Brown's only accomplishments are (1) blowing Hugh Grant, and (2) selling her story to the tabloid press, neither of which reliably establishes her heart of gold.  Alternately, will the list only include people who meet the characteristics of a "hooker with a heart of gold?"  If so, it's |original research, and also unworkable, because I have no idea what those limiting criteria are.  Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I think the article name is just right for the concept, so no problem there.  The list is unsourced, but definitely not |unverifiable, tag it for cleanup and it will hopefully improve.  If we could have a sourced version of this, it should improve from here, not be deleted: there are a lot of entries here, and the buildup of that information will be hard to replicate.  There are probably some questionable entries, but then |perfection is not required.  Finally, unlike many lists, this one cannot be replaced with a category, because most of these characters don't have articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:EP)