Deletion of Antivillain (2nd nomination)

Comment: to Villain#Sympathetic villain.  I commented on the source used here during the RfD.  The reason why I said it's probably not reliable is because it's someone's M.A. thesis.   says: {{ex|Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.}}  I originally advocated a redirect to antihero, but now I think maybe Villain#Sympathetic villain is a better choice.  I think "antivillain" is mostly a TV Tropes neologism, and while I think it's a legitimate concept, reliable sources are lagging behind my trailblazing opinions.  There are many sources for discussions of sympathetic villains, such as http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089289 (requires JSTOR subscription to read), but there just isn't enough for an article on antivillains.  It does get used occasionally in reliable sources: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-142051944.html this article from ''The Philadelphia Inquirer'', http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1267070301.html this article from ''Philadelphia Weekly'', and http://collider.com/arrow-recap-the-candidate/ this article from Collider.com.  However, this is not enough to pass 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP||WP:NEO)