Deletion of List of fictional currencies

Comment: I don't think it's necessary to ignore all - or indeed any! - rules here. I don't think lists of fictional things are inherently notable or non-notable ''per se'': though I require more convincing that fictional things deserve an article than non-fictional things. For physically/historically real things or people, I don't need to have seen any other site produce a "List of X in Y" to know that the list is likely valuable and worth keeping if individual instances of X are noteworthy and Y is a non-arbitray place or period, and particularly if the list form can provide substantial presentational or informational advantages over a category. On the other hand "List of fictional A in B" requires me to ascertain that the ''concept of fictional A'' is itself noteworthy, separately of whether real A would be notable (though not necessarily independetly: if even real A were arguably non-notable, then the odds are stacked against fictional A!). The fact that other lists of fictional things exist makes this neither more nor less deletion-worthy and it should be assessed on its merits. We can assess it either as a list, or as a very primitive version of an article on the concept of Fictional currency. Does it pass muster as a list? It isn't indiscriminate: the concept is well-defined, and the criteria for inclusion perfectly clear. Weird, certainly! But "indiscriminate" doesn't mean "unusual", it means that the inclusion criteria are arbitrary or absurd; "units of currency used in fictional scenarios in notable works of literature, TV, film or video game" is neither of those things. It couldn't be done better as a category or navigational template, because the entries mostly do not deserve their own articles. It needn't be full of original research - instances of fictional currency or exchange clearly can be referenced to source material even if this has not been done at the moment; most WP lists are often "synthesis" to some extent (in the sense that the precise list of entries may not be matched by a particular list available elsewhere) but so long as the entries are verifiable individually this need not be a breach of , which is mostly concerned with the compilation of facts slanted to advance or imply a novel position or argument. Neither do I feel that the list's classification into "Names adapted from real-world currencies" or "Exchange media" is a breach of OR (I would argue that the classification of some currencies by name/type and others by type of source material e.g. "Fictional currency in computer games" is bad editorial judgment but that can be easily rectified). To me this all establishes that the content and mode of construction of such a list do not breach Wikipedia's substantive content rules. But does the topic itself pass notability requirements? The answer is provided by Colonel Warden; a specialized Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has an entry for such a topic. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of Everything, including topics normally found in specialist rather than generalist encyclopedias. Similarly, even the brief Ebert discussion of the concept of "fictional currency" suggests that the concept is worth a page, and currently we are using this list as one. Prune, verify and rearrange more coherently (e.g. "computer game" is a bad subheading since some fictional settings and their currencies are used in a variety of media e.g. book, game and film) by all means, and maybe it's better as a broader article on fictional currencies, but this particular list of fictional things satisfies both our requirements for building a list, and our article notability threshold
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: appears to be a strong consensus that this list is plagued with OR. The central problem with this article is that Wikipedia is now the only place where a list like this has been published, making the fundamental idea for this list into . There are a lot of policy-less arguments for keep: votes, basically. Wikipedia is not a democracy. But if we give into the votes, at the very least this list needs to be pruned drastically
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Trivia for the sake of trivia and indiscriminate in the sense it gathers fictions together with no rhyme or reason except that they have fictional currencies (unsurprising). 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: XYZ has a fictional currency and it's called this" is not the basis for an article per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: per the excellent reasoning of TheGrappler. Again, people |randomly toss policy acronyms like IINFO without actually understanding what they are meant for -actually as a feeble pedestal to justify a . An indiscriminate list is something like "List of blue petals fallen the 5th of May" or "List of badass big toes". A list with a well defined, notable and reasonable inclusion criteria, like this one, is not IINFO. I may also add the following: One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is that of ''conveniently structuring'' content, not only of collecting it. Lists are a powerful tool for this aim. If one wants to research the topic of fictional currencies, a list of such currencies is a powerful tool. Lists are different from other articles in that they are navigational aids, and as such they are ''meant'' to be useful. Such usefulness comes into play when deciding its fate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)