Deletion of List of people speculated to have been syphilitic (2nd nomination)

Comment: as per nom. Have to agree with TJ Spyke about its title word, ''speculated'', and the discussion on the talkpage Martinp23 cites. Is it time for 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Aside from , speculative data of this sort is best served elsewhere - such as /dev/null
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: aside from the sourcing and potential BLP/BDP issues, what concerns me greatly is the discussion which goes on at the Talk:List of people speculated to have been syphilitic|talk page, where editors seem to dicuss the inclusion of certain figures by debate, in most cases without reliable, verifiable sources.  This freaks me out (to be honest) and smells of |original research en masse
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (per ) - even if true, this would probably be the only thing most of the people had in common, and many other (non-notable) people would have had syphilis that are not in this list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: If it is speculative, and looking at the names included it is indeed highly speculative, to the point where it would generate multiple lawsuits were the alleged victims still alive, then by definition it is  and non-encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)