Deletion of List of Roman cognomina

Comment: by  definition 6 list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable  not to mention half of the list if not more do not have Wikipedia articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: The rationale given by the nominator, , clearly does not apply here.  This is not A, a summary-only description of works; B, a lyrics database; C, an excessive listing of unexplained statistics; or D, an exhaustive log of software updates.  Nor should it be necessary to reply to the bare assertion that the topic constitutes "listcruft".  There's a reason that  is a heading under "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".  Roman cognomina are discussed in a main article, and are the subject of scholarly treatises, some of which date back over a hundred and twenty years.  A list of them is easily longer than such an article ought to contain, and so a stand-alone list is justified under the criteria for lists.  Does everything in the list merit inclusion?  Probably not, as some of the entries give the appearance of not being cognomina.  In that case, the issue here is sorting out those entries that don't belong; but that's not a basis for deletion of the list.  Should the list consist largely of redlinks?  It's not that seemly, but you could get at least a paragraph out of quite a lot of entries that don't currently have them.  Chase divides his list of cognomina from the earliest volumes of the ''Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum'' into several main and a few minor categories by type, and within each type provides some indication of etymology for individual names; in addition to which there are encyclopedic mentions of some in the ''Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology'' or in the Roman grammarians and antiquarians; and information on the historical usage could potentially be gleaned from a simple list of individuals bearing certain cognomina from historical sources or inscriptions.  Should the redlinks be turned into plain text until entries are written?  Not necessarily, since the existence of redlinks encourages the development of articles where they can be justified, and no policy discourages them.  But again, that's not related to whether the article should be deleted.  The topic is plainly notable; the list is too long to go in a main article on the topic; and the contents can plainly be improved.  There's simply no justification for deleting this list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE||WP:ITSCRUFT)