Deletion of List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants

Comment: This is an indiscriminate list of no encyclopedic value; |a year from now the only one anyone will remember is Old Spice Guy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: Articles for deletion about Same article In Korean Wikipedia concludes to keep ithttps://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EC%82%AD%EC%A0%9C_%ED%86%A0%EB%A1%A0/%EC%95%84%EC%9D%B4%EC%8A%A4_%EB%B2%84%ED%82%B7_%EC%B1%8C%EB%A6%B0%EC%A7%80_%EC%B0%B8%EA%B0%80%EC%9E%90_%EB%AA%A9%EB%A1%9D#.EC.95.84.EC.9D.B4.EC.8A.A4_.EB.B2.84.ED.82.B7_.EC.B1.8C.EB.A6.B0.EC.A7.80_.EC.B0.B8.EA.B0.80.EC.9E.90_.EB.AA.A9.EB.A1.9D, due to it has notability and inform. And they says according to , it is "what a reader would expect to find
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:WHATISTOBEDONE)

Comment: I don't see any valid reason for deletion.  obviously doesn't apply since this list is restricted to people who have done the ice bucket challenge, an indiscriminate list of people would be one where people were randomly added. Also "not being encyclopedic" is not a valid reason for deletion either
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I want this page to be kept because I like knowing who has done the challenge, but that is basically . However, the article is well sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LIKEIT)

Comment: per . So many people have done this now that it has ceased to be distinctive; the fact that it can be sourced is immaterial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: Can anyone explain to me how the subject of this list qualifies as notable for a stand-alone list per ?  Where is the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources of this group of people as "Ice Bucket Challenge participants
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST)

Comment: does not fit  and meets  as being too big to be merged back into the main article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:FORK)

Comment: Its so obvious, I don't know why there is even a discussion.  We're over 500 sources, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to google this stuff.  If you don't like a particular source for whatever reason, spend a minute to find a new one and edit it in.  The most time consuming part of that is making the edit into such a huge article.  This may be a contemporary fad, we expect it to go away, but  tells us that a passing fad is not temporary for our reporting of it.  Clearly, clearly it achieves  now and deserves to stay.  That said, the article certainly needs cleanup.  Lets make it better.  I suggest editors might better spend their time and editing skills to help clean it up, rather than spending your time complaining about it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:GNG)

Comment: This is an indiscriminate list with no specific inclusion criteria. Most of the sources are rubbish - first party Facebook, Instagram and Youtube posts do not meet . It's unlikely that coherent criteria could ever be implemented
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)