Deletion of List of fictional penguins

Comment: Fails  as |indiscriminate information because a list of fictional penguins is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value. () I've checked though the entries and found that only Chilly Willy, Frobisher (Doctor Who), Opus the Penguin, Tux, and Prinny that have stand-alone articles. The rest are redirects, links to character lists, links to the works the characters are from, or have no link at all. I would also have to agree with ThemFromSpace that the this is a list or repository of loosely associated topics, and thus fails the DIR|Wikipedia is not a directory of the  policy. Just because there are |other lists exist with similar issues doesn't mean that we give this list a pass as far a policy is concerned
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IINFO||WP:SALAT||WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOT||WP:WAX)

Comment: Fails  and  because the criteria for inclusion is too broad to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it.  What is left is nothing but namedropping and trivia. The contents of the article have nothing to do with each other besides the unencyclopedic cross-categorization of "penguins" and "fiction". I'm quite disturbed at the consensus above that ignores these key maintenance guidelines. It's lists like this that we should concentrate on deleting and I applaud the nom for the effort
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:SALAT)

Comment: three of the five keep !votes are based on arguments which are widely considered to be erroneous -  is not a justification to keep, the argument that it is popular is basically just a simplified version of  and the argument by Calathan basically ignores the fact that |consensus can change and also shares problems with . I'm not sure that any policy states that entries in a list shouldn't be sourced simply because the entities listed are sourced, and certainly not all the penguins listed have sources on their main article. There's also an issue that some penguins on the list don't have articles. If  is "invalid", you need to take that up on the talk page or at the village pump. At the moment, I believe it reflects consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:POPULARPAGE||WP:CCC||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:SALAT)

Comment: as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes #OR|the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by . If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation in accordance with ource list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:MADEUP||WP:S)

Comment: Most entries are linked to Wikipedia articles and those articles have references (as with many lists), so I don't think the list requires additional references of its own for every entry (unless perhaps the linked-to article doesn't actually mention the penguin in question). I know  is not usually a strong Keep argument, but there is a pretty big precedent in the shape of a whole load of similar lists - eg List of fictional dogs|dogs, List of fictional ducks|ducks, List of fictional dinosaurs|dinosaurs, List of fictional hares and rabbits|rabbits, List of fictional raccoons|raccoons, List of fictional weasels|weasels, List of fictional worms|worms, List of fictional wolves|wolves (and that's just checking three letters of the alphabet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Arguments like ''a list of fictional penguins is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value'' speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional penguins? It is clearly '''not''' indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly '''not''' as broad to fail : in any case I'd like to remind that  is never a reason for deletion, but for ''reorganization'': the guideline says: ''Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, '''unless they are split into sections'''. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). '''This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories.''' When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. '''For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists.''''' The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such |deletion policy asks us not to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT||WP:SALAT||WP:ATD)