Deletion of List of female stock characters (2nd nomination)

Comment: Pure  and arbitrary fancruft. It is not an encyclopedic article and does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for being verifiable and notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: We had nothing but Keeps for this last time and the nominator does not explain why he has changed his view from the view he expressed then, nor has he made his objections known at the article's talk page.  There is much talk of OR above but little in the way of specifics or examples to demonstrate or prove that this material is original.  If the article is inspected, we see that the entries are mostly blue links and, if you follow these, you will find substantial sourced articles to back them up - articles such as Bunny boiler and Bond girl.  These terms and concepts did not originate here and the sources prove it.  Furthermore, we have sources to back up entries in the list and it is easy to add more.  For example, consider a good seasonal example - Pantomime dame.  This is a stock character in the Pantomime|traditional theatrical entertainment held especially in Britain during the Christmas season.  Most British readers will understand this immediately but foreign readers may require a citation.  So, looking for a source, one soon finds http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cRbT2xFsnv4C&pg=RA1-PA1-IA1 an educational work in which the pantomime dame is discussed with Widow Twanky being provided as an example of this stock character, as in our list.  I shall now add this source to the list and so it is improved in accordance with our |editing policy.  Deletion of such well-founded and sourced material would be directly contrary to that |policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Per  issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as a previous discussion closed as an overwhelming keep and anytime someone uses a  or  style of non-argument in an AfD we must keep by default. And also keep per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT||WP:PERNOM)

Comment: but require sourcing, although it should be adequate for the sourcing to be included in the linked articles. Having this list in Wikipedia was a key justification for deleting :Category:Female stock characters, although that was ly emptied and deleted three times and never taken to CFD/DRV; the fullest discussion is probably
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)