Deletion of List of management consulting firms

Comment: per nom, as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on #OR|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 that this list complies with |content policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:MADEUP||WP:CONPOL)

Comment: A list like this is just a spamtrap. The category is the right tool, and per  we do not try to list every notable management consulting firm (particularly the redlink ones
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: No reason for nomination to exist.  |AFD is not cleanup.  |Categories do not supersede lists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:CLS)

Comment: complies with ist and does not violate OR or POV
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: I strongly disagree with the ideas mentioned above that lists do not need to assert notability.  Stand-alone lists ''are'' articles ( makes this explicit) so they most certainly ''do'' need to assert notability of the subject matter, ie: the list. If the list itself isn't notable the info can be presented elsewhere, but not as a stand-alone article.  The notability criteria shouldn't be too hard to pass for truly notable lists, such as AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:STAND)