Deletion of List of notable people who wore the bowler hat

Comment: Yes, I created the original version of this article, which was demerged from the Bowler hat article, where it occupied 60% of the space. No, I had no idea there even was a bow tie controversy until reading here, so WP:POINT is NOT an issue. This article's content was the subject of a minor delete/edit war on Bowler hat, and thinking that I could de-escalate that, I off-loaded it as a {{main}}type list article. We do have many dedicated list articles on WP--- see . In any case, this accounts for the large amount of info appearing suddenly (and yes, I noticed the Clockwork Orange guys are missing, too).  Should this thing be kept? Well, the Bowler hat makes something more of a fashion statement than a bowtie, and always did. Why this is, I do not know. This article was created piecemeal by very many contributors, and if it's gone, people will just start adding these things one at a time again to the Bowler hat article. That's rather unlikely that this would happen to the bow tie article, since there are so many other famous wearers. It's a bad idea to delete an article which will be piecemeal re-created, by people who had no idea of its initial existence! But what do you think of, when you think of Oddjob or Laurel and Hardy or Bat Masterson?  Yes, the thing needs to be sectioned into real and fictional characters, and they need some kind of order. But we can't do that, if you delete it.  I'm a little shocked that people would say "might be encyclopedic in the future, but meanwhile since it isn't, delete it." That's not the way Wikipedia grows! A last issue is that many list articles have references embedded in the links they reference. For example: List of people who've been beheaded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_beheaded. Similarly, very many links in this list article are similar referenced, by a direct photo or drawing of somebody wearning a bowler, in the linked Wiki itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: Per  - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for deletion. It took me less than a minute find sources and the only remaining issues are to improve the list and the lede to show why bowler hats are tied to these people/characters. Bowler hat, by the way, is also rather a mess so I see little benefit to counteracting what was sensibly spun off. Clean-it up and start demonstrating how the subject can be dealt with encyclopedicly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: That's effectively a form of |the what about ''X'' argument. There's no established policy of ruling in matching ways on similar articles not jointly nominated, and the two articles are very different in their apparent criteria of inclusion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: It's better to |assume good faith. DGG's comments do appear to apply to the subjects of this article and not to the hat itself. (Although see my own !vote below
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Just another |indiscriminate list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: as |not encyclopaedic, simply an |indiscriminate list. Totally fails E|notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTE)

Comment: with prejudice towards recreation, and '''warn''' the author not to |disrupt Wikipedia again to make a point upon threat of a |block. Why has a |request for comment not been started regarding articles like these instead of going back and forth with this stupid bickering bullshit? (pardon my strong tone and French
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:BLOCK||WP:RFC)

Comment: back to Bowler hat, or '''source, add lead, and then keep'''. I do believe this to be a notable phenomenon, but of the first five entries, only two of the articles about the person or character even mentioned a "derby" or "bowler hat", making the list difficult for the reader to verify. I suspect most if not all of these entries can be sourced, so please do it to demonstrate notability. Because if this is not sourced, there will be an endless cycle of splitting, deleting, merging, and splitting again. Break the cycle with |reliable sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The list fails immediately |as a collection of indiscriminate information.  While it may be notable in an article about Winston Churchill that he wore a bowler hat, since that is an attribute of the man's dress, a list of people, notable or otherwise, who wore the hat is not and can not be notable.  What is interesting is by no means always notable.  A very short list of examples of wearers is acceptable in the Bowler hat article, but, even there, an exhaustive list is a broad irrelevance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)