Deletion of List of fictional anthropologists

Comment: This fD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like Special:PermaLink/979987651|this into a prose article that looked like Special:PermaLink/991740265|this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something ''about'' concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. I believe the article linked by {{noping|Andrew Davidson}} demonstrates that a prose article can be written. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: per the editors above. In my own words: As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional anthropologists, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that |"I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that |is not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC||WP:ATD)

Comment: Easy pass of  – see the ''https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/16852/1/AnthropologistsInFilmsJan15.doc Anthropologists in Films: ‘The Horror! The Horror!’'', for example.  See also  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:BEFORE||WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC)

Comment: per Andrew's note about , with another example that covers fictional anthropologists: "https://crimereads.com/on-forensic-anthropologists-in-fact-and-fiction/ On Forensic Anthropologists in Fact and Fiction." Additionally, "unencyclopedic" in the nomination is especially vague when even-further qualified as merely the nominator's "feeling" regarding this list. I do agree with TompaDompa that a prose article is preferable, but don't think this is absolutely necessary for its continued existence
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)