It is of course up to you what criteria you use to choose which items to put on your list. You seem to be inclined to argue about it, but arguing's not really my thing these days, so I'll bow out at this point.
I apologize. I was doing with you precisely what I do with myself when I debate if I should include a deck. I'm not treating you any differently than I treat myself. I compare and contrast various elements and then ask how my criterion should change if a particular deck challenges my assumptions. I don't consider this argumentative, but rather it is a process of refining both my observations and correcting my assumptions. I've been doing a lot of that as I've been going through almost 30 decks laid out on my table, including Lévi images, the Falconnier-Wegener deck, the Papus-Goulinat deck, the RWS and several Marseille-style decks.
For instance, I hadn't realized how close Wirth stuck to the Marseille decks until I started closely comparing them. Certain elements that I assumed were Wirth were there in the Marseille all along. Likewise, I've found that a couple of decks draw heavily from Eliphas Lévi's images and/or Paul Christian's descriptions, but otherwise don't have any Wirth elements. So, I have to come to the conclusion that those decks were influenced by Lévi and/or Christian but not Wirth.
I don't see it as being argumentative, but about trying to get at what is really going on and clarifying what is and is not particular to Wirth in the process. Is there something wrong with that? It does require careful comparisons and refinement of criterion.
When I don't have a deck to look at directly, I have to rely on others.
I apologize about the Beginner's Deck. As I already said, it looks like it could be partly Wirth-influenced: Strength has a Wirth-like collar on her cape; the Fool is totally different. I'll include it because of the collar. Unless I discover otherwise, it seems to be a Wirth-initiated influence.