Deletion of List of lakes named after people

Comment: I have already voted above to keep this article, and wanted to add a bit more detailed comment.  A consensus of editors at  agreed that '''"The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination."'''  This certainly seems an encouragement for this sort of article.   also cautions against list that are too broad or too narrow, which this list doesn't seem to be.  Finally, this list doesn't seem to fall into , in that it list notable lakes, along with the person the lake is named after.  I actually added two lakes to the list, Lake Simcoe and Elvis Presley Lake.  There are dozens of similar eponymous geographic lists on Wikipedia, such as List of islands named after people, List of railway stations named after people, and List of chess openings named after people.  I'd hate to open the door for the deletion of these sorts of lists
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT||WP:SALAT||WP:NOT)

Comment: fulfills the criteria of . Have add template: {{Dynamic list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: This list seems to have been invented by Wikipedia editors; do reliable sources treat namesake lakes as a distinct group? I'm unimpressed by the similar  lists for the same reason; seems like these would make more sense as categories if we cover them at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: fulfills the criteria of  aiding in navigation and providing information. Serves our readers to keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: fails ; I see no evidence of reliable sources discussing this subject. I also fail to see what useful information this provides. This would be better suited as a category
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: because it fails . Since no reliable sources seem to discuss the subject. It's also not valid IMO to just to keep it because it's part of a navigation thing. There's no guideline that lists in navigation boxes are exempt from being deleted if they aren't notable and plenty of them have been then. That seems to be the main argument of the keep voters though. That and "other stuff exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: per  items 1-3, 6, 8, and 12
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: meets  as it relates to  ie. "a valuable information source" and "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia.", and whats with all the citation needed tags against each unrefed entry? why not just a "more refs needed" tag at the top of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:LISTPURP)