Deletion of Mumps outbreaks in the 21st century

Comment: I'm not seeing anything resembling a -REASON|reason to delete in the nomination.  It is our policy that |"Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome" and |"If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  See also  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:ATD||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: This page should be judged as a list rather than a regular article.  It seems to satisfy the second criterion of the |common selection criteria, "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria".  The guideline says "Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their 'parent' topic", but this list seems too big for that.  It is questioned whether mumps outbreaks ''in the 21st century'' specifically is a notable topic, but limiting the list to the 21st century could be an editorial decision to keep the list size manageable and exclude periods for which sources might not exist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:CSC)

Comment: clearly notable per above discussion; I don't think it's so bad it rates a . I don't object to a list, move, or re-naming
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)