Deletion of Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal

Comment: A list of people holding yes/no opinions on a specific current issue is fundamentally not encyclopedic.  A detailed discussion of a past event, with a list of leading supporters of each position, is a very good idea, and it's quite reasonable to have lists of people by affiliations (e.g. lists of politicians by party affiliations, lists of people by religious affiliation), but simply a "Supporters and Opposers of CurrentPoliticalTopic", regardless of its title is not a good encyclopedia topic.  For example, people's opinions can change, so you can't ensure that something that was correct yesterday is correct today: it could become incorrect just because of the passage of time, especially if someone on this list changes his mind and doesn't announce it until they take a vote.  We need lists of "fixed" concepts, concepts that can't easily change, e.g. past events such as legislators by the way they voted on a bill, but please note that even after the US Congress votes on this matter, a complete list of supporters and opposers will be a matter of undue weight on the vote.  As someone said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current top 40 albums (UK), ''Delete per #NEWS. An article that becomes outdated and has to be rewritten every week is essentially "List of top 40 albums (UK) for the week XX-YY Jan 2010", which would be deleted for being a current event of no lasting significance. Plus, the accuracy of articles should not depend on whether a single editor can be bothered to maintain it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: but I would suggest dividing into separate lists of supporters and opposers.  While quite long, the author's rationale is essentially correct.  To respond to other comments, the controversy surrounding Schumer indicates that this dispute has (at least partially) transcended party lines.  Additionally, there has been more than sufficient media coverage of individuals' support or opposition to the deal -- not of the individuals themselves, but of their reaction to the deal.  As such, this subject would be notable in and of itself, and I think it meets the criteria of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)