Deletion of List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (Second nomination)

Comment: the list is well annotated and organized, which is required for .  The content illustrates examples of an encyclopedic articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: The Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of_fiction that breaks the fourth wall|previous nomination for deletion was made in November 2005. The article has been edited some 1470 times since then, which works out to over three changes a day. This article is a fancruft magnet, and indeed in the last RfD one of the participants indicated that as part of its intent. It's all |original research anyway, as evidenced by the total lack of any citations ''stating'' that what goes on in any of these works does in fact break the fourth wall. It's just a lot of editors, on their own authority, saying that what goes on in such and such a show/film/game/whatever fits the definition
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Arkyan's point is extremely sound: Fourth wall includes sufficient examples to explain the concept, and the development of breaking it, for readers. This article is #IINFO|indiscriminate. Most of the examples, unlike the ones in Fourth wall, seem to have been picked entirely at random, and are unreferenced. So far as I can see, this list does not seem to fulfill any of the Wikipedia:List guideline#Purpose of lists|purposes of lists, and as Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) says, "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". This list has no encyclopedic value
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)