Deletion of List of important homeopaths

Comment: the current version of the article.  The current list describes most of the people on there and has citations and/or articles for all (the two reasons raised in the nomination).  The article has been renamed, so the issue of POV regarding "important" is no longer relevant.  Finally, this list is not redundant to the category as it contains descriptions of each person (dates of birth/death and contributions), is essentially chronologically organised, provides sources, ''and'' aids in the development of new articles ( point 3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: I'm not delving to deep into this page, but it has 26 references to back up its claims!  I'd guess this page meets  better than 99% of articles on wikpedia.  The first one I checked http://homeoint.org/biograph/boericke.htm explcitily states that Boericke, William (5th in the list) is an "Eminent U.S. homœopath."  Maybe being a Homeopath is totally bogus, but these people are important homeopaths.  It doesn't matter if the science is bogus, we need to follow Wikipedia:Fringe theories
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: In my view there's nothing sufficiently special about ''just'' being a homeopath to justify this list. Plus it is in breach of  and . It asserts that these homeopaths are "important" which is a subjective decision while providing no proper sources to support that assertion or indeed to confirm that they ''are'' homeopaths
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:ATT)