Deletion of List of fictional pandas

Comment: Fails  as |indiscriminate information because a list of fictional pandas is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value. () I've checked though the entries and found that only Andy Panda, Lord Noriyuki, Takemitsu SeiRyu, and Tarepanda that have stand-alone articles about the characters. And that's not assessing the E|notability of those characters. The rest are links to character lists, links to the works the characters are from, redirect to character lists or works the characters are from, or have no link at all. I would also have to agree that 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:NOTE||WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOT||WP:WAX)

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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:MADEUP)

Comment: This, like most all "list of fictional animals" articles, is of a topic far too broad (per ) to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. The result is nothing but a directory listing of every fictional character our editors can think of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: per  and . You don't make lists just because you like to make lists. If a list is unsourced, as this is, it should at least perform some sort of useful navigational function- and this doesn't. Useless clutter
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:IINFO)

Comment: Absurd nomination as the list is obviously neither indiscriminate nor a sales catalog.  The nomination complains that no work has been done.  This is the poor argument of .  Perhaps the nominator can tell us what work he has done as we see no signs of his activity on the article's talk page or in its edit history.  AFD is not cleanup nor a way of extorting work from other editors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOEFFORT)

Comment: per  and .  Only one element of this list has a reference.  It seems odd to me that this article has existed for so long, and had such extensive work to it done by numerous editors, yet no one has been able to find sources.  If you got rid of all the red-linked and non-linked elements in this list, you'd be left with a pretty sad looking article.  Why is that important?  Because red-linked and non-linked elements mean that they're likely not notable.  So, can we jump to the conclusion that this list is a collection of mostly non-notable things?  I think it would be safe to say yes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: wikipedia is |NOTDIRECTORY and you can't stitch together any random group of things you find interesting. Not an encyclopedic group because there are no secondary sources that talk about this grouping. Despite claims for potential, there are no sources because none exist. Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:N||WP:V)