Deletion of List of crooners

Comment: or '''Merge''' to Crooners. The deletion arguments make no sense - the topic of crooners is notable, we're agreed? And there are notable crooners with articles on Wikipedia, right? We know that, as we've got a category for them; we must be able to define who a crooner is, so it isn't indiscriminate - we use the descriptions given by reliable sources. If there's a content dispute, we resolve it, we don't delete whole articles. And the existence of a category doesn't preclude the existence of a list. So what argument is left for deletion, other than 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The nomination's contention that we may not talk of crooners is blatant prejudice against a notable genre of music which dominated the first half of the 20th century.  Here are http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=crooner&hl=en&btnG=Search thousands of scholarly sources which show that we will have no difficulty sourcing entries if this seems needed.  The other comments that a category supersedes this list take a contrary position in that they assume that we may have an equivalent valid category.  But categories can't be given citations like list entries can and so those comments are nonsensical especially as  tells us clearly that lists are not superseded by categories
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLS)

Comment: Per  a list should present an unambiguous statement of membership criteria.  This one doesn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:STAND)