The result of the discussion was: delete. While the votes were (very neatly) split down the middle, the argument that this list article violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE is more compelling than the argument that it might be useful for spin-off lists. Due to its overly broad inclusion criteria, this list would never make it into mainspace. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that it might be useful for spin-off lists, if no one has found it useful since it was created in 2006, it's unlikely that it's going to be found useful by anyone. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 01:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Far too general a list that cannot hope to ever be anything close to comprehensive. This is essentially a List of every woman we know about. There are even living persons included, which makes "historical" doubtful. Even if some cut-off for "historical" was added it would still be a list of Every biographical article of a woman before X date. Due to this lack of specificity and discrimination it does not fulfill any criterion of WP:LISTPURPS and the inclusion criteria does not fit WP:LISTCRIT. A very good example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No hope of becoming a useful article promoted out of draft space. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. While the votes were (very neatly) split down the middle, the argument that this list article violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE is more compelling than the argument that it might be useful for spin-off lists. Due to its overly broad inclusion criteria, this list would never make it into mainspace. While I'm sympathetic to the idea that it might be useful for spin-off lists, if no one has found it useful since it was created in 2006, it's unlikely that it's going to be found useful by anyone. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 01:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Far too general a list that cannot hope to ever be anything close to comprehensive. This is essentially a List of every woman we know about. There are even living persons included, which makes "historical" doubtful. Even if some cut-off for "historical" was added it would still be a list of Every biographical article of a woman before X date. Due to this lack of specificity and discrimination it does not fulfill any criterion of WP:LISTPURPS and the inclusion criteria does not fit WP:LISTCRIT. A very good example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No hope of becoming a useful article promoted out of draft space. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)