Deletion of List of recluses

Comment: but article needs a proper introduction and specific rules need to defined for inclusion that don't violate 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Arbitrary, vague, and subjective list criteria and concerns over  are valid -- we wouldn't have a list of people with mental/physical health issues or a list of eccentric people and there would be a lot of overlap with people added to this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: per Pontificalibus. It's too vague and thus raises  concerns. Recluse may cover a few notable examples and comment on them. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: as an |indiscriminate collection of information. While we can all find sources of people describing them as a recluse (eg: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/music-theatre/2019/03/scott-walker-wasn-t-recluse-he-just-thought-compromise-was-toxic Scott Walker), I can't see any evidence that there are sources about ''lists of notable recluses as a whole''. In particular, the sources produced by Cunard seem to be passing mentions of recluses as part of ''other subjects'' as opposed to sources that document recluses directly, while the ones from Clarityfiend appear to be a bit of light humour such as "How much of the Syd Barrett factor has John Deacon got?" which isn't really suitable for a general article. Perhaps a category would be more appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per  and objections raised above. The page for recluse already provides examples, which do not need to be complete in order to be valid. But attempting to maintain a ''running list of notable people'' requires efforts toward both accuracy and completeness, something not only difficult but also privacy-invasive toward |living persons. Also, a list regarding character traits or behaviors should be given sensitivity similar to how religion or sexual orientation are regarded in  and CAT. As demonstrated in this AfD discussion, even agreeing on what ''is'' a reliable source for whether a person is genuinely a “recluse” would be difficult. I second
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCATALOG||WP:BLP||WP:LISTPEOPLE||WP:BLPCAT)