Deletion of List of artists who have resided in Brooklyn

Comment: per  # 5 and 6. Anyway it's  (that's an essay, I know, but one that is supported by a vast majority of Wikipedia users
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:DOAL||WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: pure  , worthless not notable topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: I support a '''speedy keep''' per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion: '''Renominations''': After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be Wikipedia:Blocking policy|disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." {{user|Northamerica1000}} https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBrooklyn_Artists&type=revision&diff=669703132&oldid=669702205 has shown with several sources that "List of artists from Brooklyn" is a notable topic.Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory says: Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. Since "List of artists from Brooklyn" is a notable topic,  actually provides support for the retention of this article, not its deletion.I also agree with {{user|postdlf}} that several of the "delete" votes advance arguments that conflict with the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative, which says: It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic.  These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative.  Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and |should be avoided. Another argument for deletion is , which has four bullet points: (1) Summary-only descriptions of works, (2) Lyrics databases, (3) Excessive listings of statistics, and (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. None of these bullet points can be applied to "List of artists from Brooklyn".The "keep" arguments far outweigh the "delete" ones, which is why {{user|Xymmax}} closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Artists as "keep" despite the split vote count: The result was '''keep'''. Numerically it would be no consensus, but the keep !votes were more policy compliant. The list technically isn't indiscriminate because it has both a context (affiliation with Brooklyn) and sourcing. The fact that in its current form it duplicates the function of a category is not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:ATA||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: disruptive and bad faith renomination that was closed as keep just ''yesterday''. The nominator has spent that one day blanking entries without regard for whether they can be sourced (as easily as from their linked articles), and edit warring to even remove entries that ''are'' sourced. Their wikilawyering over the title is completely frivolous, as is their  NOTDIR rationale. Recommend ANI report if this nonsense continues, as Vrac is merely determined to attack this list and make it difficult for other editors to expand it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE)