Deletion of List of spoilers

Comment: There's a technical difficulty here.  I started reading the article then realised that it was going to spoil works which I have not read or viewed yet.  This makes it difficult to improve the article within the timescale of AFD - one has to approach the matter indirectly.  The recent Mousetrap case clearly indicates that spoilers and/or plot twists may have great notability, and so this article adds value by assisting readers in navigation to these cases, if they don't mind the risk.  If particular entries are unsatisfactory then they may be dealt with by ordinary editing and deletion would be unhelpful and contrary to our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: per , and also be weary that the article is being linked from http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dalz7/dear_reddit_i_have_just_created_the_list_of/ here--Special:Contributions/70.122.112.145|70.122.112.145
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I think this article is notable and has encyclopedic qualities. Here is your criteria: the fiction work is notable as it has its own article and more than one reliable source labels it as a spoiler. Categories are great as well to provide improved navigation per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN)

Comment: Just look at  to start with. This is trivial and has no chance of not being . If we want to say something is a notable plot twist, we need  not just come up with a list. This should go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: Unmaintainable list that could go into the thousands of entries. Uncited. Unclear criteria for inclusion (what makes a twist "notable"??). Essentially |list cruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: as a perfect example of an |indiscriminate list. No criteria are available to determine what plots should be listed here, apart from polling among editors (aka ). Referencing items to some kind of relevant review is just an attempt to avoid the OR tag, and is not going to work because there is no established procedure in the arts for assessing plot twists: someone will write an article and comment on a plot simply to fill space, so some plots could be included or excluded purely by chance. Lists should be restricted to those with at least a hope of objective inclusion criteria (for example, winners of a particular award
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:OR)