Deletion of List of people known as father or mother of something

Comment: extensive sourcing notwithstanding.  I know I'm going against the grain here, but if lumping the "father of the baby carrot", the "father of Canadian rodeo" and Jules Verne together simply because someone called them the "father of something" isn't an indiscriminate listing and a violation of , I really don't know what is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: and I am once again baffled as to what most editors think the word "indiscriminate" means.  Per '''''', the Wikipedia List Guideline, this is valid.  This is useful for information and for navigation.  And it's just incredibly well-sourced.  Somebody put a lot of work into this article and we need something much better than  to destroy all that hard work.  And, even if you think it falls under , (a statement with which I directly and specifically disagree because the inclusion criteria are stated, it is not a directory, and just because the concept "Parent of" is an abstraction, doesn't mean it's therefore loosely related); why not in recognition of the incredible hard work that went into this list just |cut the creators some slack because in addition to having dubious arguments to delete, the list happens to be ''incredibly'' interesting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOT||WP:IAR)

Comment: It’s an excellent sub-index of notable people, contributes to accessibility of their entries, and definitely belongs in a comprehensive encyclopedia.  Both the person and the thing need to be notable enough to have their own entries, as is mostly the case.  Non-notable entries should be removed.  Ideas for reorganization should be left to editors involved.  #DIRECTORY does not apply as that policy section is intended to prevent directories of wikipedia content, which are necessary for accessibility
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Whilst it is excellently cited, the 'one hit and you're in' criteria make it impossible to give a |neutral point of view. It is far from complete and could run into thousands of entries. Leonardo Da Vinci is not on the list; a quick Google search shows that he's been described as the father of flight, cryptography and modern anatomy. It's the same for most inventors, not to mention artists and politicians
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Per  and the above Delete votes. Well-sourced or not, it's an indiscrimate (as stated above, "one hit and you're in", plus very loose association) collection of info
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)