Deletion of List of slave owners

Comment: as index of articles by significant shared fact per  and as complement to :Category:Slave owners per . The nom’s only substantive complaint is just a question of development and organization, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP||WP:CLN)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: and -- of course -- improve), per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: The topic passes  – see the scholar link above for many interesting papers.  The "not useful" nomination is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NOTUSEFUL)

Comment: have left the following on the article's talkpage that highlights the problem with having such a wikilist - "hi all, I note that  presently there are around 230 people listed in this article, of those about 190 lived 17th to 19th cents, and yet, for example, there are 1000s of romans at the category:Roman people by century, the majority of whom were slave owners (let alone all the other ancient peoples), who have not been included. Why the |undue weight
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)