Deletion of List of people who are left-handed

Comment: per nomination &mdash; passingly entertaining but unmaintainable listcruft. Doubtlessly there are specific professions and activities where left-handedness is relevant, but this list is far too general. The topic of left-handedness is notable and deserves an article, but we don't need this |heap of trivia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: At least until the page can be auto-generated and maintained as a ategory. Seems like it'd be easy to run through all these entries and associate them with a category label, and then this page gets automatically managed. Adding the references here to the relevant pages would be a plus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: Just because the list seems to be less relevant than other pages does not mean it should be deleted. This page is viewed around 200 times per day on average and spiked on National Left-Handers Day, showing that it represents an important reference for left-handed people and further, improves Wikipedia. Per  and in agreement with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: per  as overly broad. TenFive times worse than List of blondes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: per nom. There was once a time when Wikipedia really embraced these unrealistically large lists as a kind of surrogate for categories - such as List of German people. This particular one seems a strong fail of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: due to being badly sourced, the people in the list largely not being known for their left handedness, and this therefore largely being . Plus, it not being an "essential—''defining''—characteristics of a topic" and similar "this is a meaningless list topic" rationales that have already been provided by other people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: with no prejudice against creating encyclopedic lists such as those suggested above by power~enwiki.  says {{tq|Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence}} and handedness is only of encyclopedic and topical relevance in a few specific professions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTCRIT)