Deletion of List of fictional characters by IQ (2nd nomination)

Comment: per |common sense. That's freakin' everybody! How much more indiscriminate can you possibly get
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMON)

Comment: nom already quite exhaustive and well argued. Not much to add but completely fails , , and its primarily  with in-universe "sourcing" that does not actually meet any requirement for "significant coverage from reliable, third party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: per superb nomination. This list is entirely trivial, and fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: WP:INTERESTING != . (Nor is .) Strong arguments above. A list of disparate fictional characters, sorted by a fictional attribute, apparently providing such a list to anyone who might be interested rather than because it is a genuinely notable topic in the sense that ''credible third party writers have taken note of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE||WP:USEFUL)

Comment: per the excellent and very comprehensive nomination. This also fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:IINFO)

Comment: as a violation of |original research by synthesis. Although it may at first glance seem to be a simple summary of source material (which is permitted), I don't think that is the case here. The ranked list attempts to introduce new information regarding which works have the most intelligent characters. The creators of these fictional characters did not write up an IQ for purposes of comparing them to other fictional characters, but as a plot point for their work, and their work only; the IQs of these characters are therefore too loosely associated to justify bundling them into an article. Case in point: The IQs of Holly from Red Dwarf (12368) and Alakazam from Pokemon (5000) are not meant to reflect their supposed results on an IQ test at all (these scores are impossible on IQ tests), but rather a cute literary device to hammer in the point that they are supposedly really intelligent. The two figures are not comparable, you cannot say "Holly is smarter than Alakazam" by comparing the IQs given in Red Dwarf and Pokemon. Trying to make a ranked list as to which is the most intelligent is like arranging a contest "which author can come up with the highest number
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I really can't add much to the excellent nomination. |Common sense says lists of |unimportant |trivia should be discouraged
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMON||WP:N||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: The nomination clearly fails  in that the nominator seems to want more sources but only made this demand upon the article's talk page a few hours ago and fails to demonstrate that such sources cannot be found.  I have made a brief search myself just now.  This is not easy because the nature of the topic does not seem provide a good keyword but I have already found one good relevant source: http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=kW7FScI7nNrNBKq29NwN Yardsticks: retarded characters and their roles in fiction.  This demonstrates that the topic of intelligence (or lack of same) in fiction is notable and this article provides a reasonable start in addressing this topic.  The article therefore just requires improvement in accordance with our |editing policy and deletion will not assist this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: I was shocked to see that this article previously survived AfD.   might as well just be made a redirect into this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: and tag for sources and improvement as per  and , as giudeline instructs. No need to then violate guideline to make a point. Like DGG last APril, I suggest ignoring !votes like "listcruft" as meaningless equivalents of "I dont like the article but can't give a reason". And calling all 47 sources "primary sources", seems to assume others might not actually look and see such as Business Week, The DC Comics Encyclopedia, Flowers for Algernon Book Notes Summary by Daniel Keyes, "Chapter 107" ISBN 1-4215-0242-9, Intelligence of Sherlock Holmes: And Other Three-pipe Problems ISBN 8-2791-6004-3, Hulk: The Incredible Guide. ISBN 0-7566-4169-1. Huh
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:ATD)