Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional kangaroos and wallabies
per CLN.  If it's encyclopedic as a category, it's encyclopedic as a list.  The claim above that this is a fictional kangaroo "directory" is further evidence of how poorly understood  is.  Really?  It should go right on the shelf next to my telephone directory?  NOTDIR is about ''that'' kind of directory; exhaustive, real world directories of people and services without regard to notability, like a legal professionals directory.  As written, it's clearly meant to prevent the flooding of lists with non-notable entries (List of people from New York City should not list ''every'' person who lives there and duplicate the phone book) or non-encyclopedic information (List of law firms in New York should not include telephone numbers and mailing addresses).   #1 and #6 are the only parts of  that apply at all to indexing lists, and #1 basically just tells us some lists are encyclopedic and others aren't, and #6 warns against trivial cross-categorization of unrelated facts, which doesn't apply here because this list is just a ''categorization'', not a ''cross''-categorization.  Obviously a lot of people want to use it to delete lists they don't like, but it just doesn't stretch that far, and  just becomes a |another acronym to vomit out to give the appearance of having a policy-grounded argument, without adding anything substantive to the discussion.  This list functions as an ''index'' of Wikipedia articles by a shared fact.  Wikipedia ''is'', in part, a "directory" of its own contents.  Whether that shared fact is worth documenting in a list is a valid question, but as I noted, if it's conceded that it would make a proper category, then it can't be simultaneously argued that the list is unencyclopedic
— User:Postdlf, 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTDIR||WP:VAGUEWAVE (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)