Deletion of List of pundits

Comment: More reliable sources exist for this: see, for example, "http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/01/24/punditry-performance-art-with-a-paycheck/ Punditry: Performance art with a paycheck". Reliable sources can define who is and who is not a pundit—and unless you can find reliable sources disputing that someone is a "pundit", then ignoring the reliable sources that say they are is just as much |original research and |biased as including entries which aren't verifiable. Further, |categories and lists work in synergy, and should be used to maintain each other
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:CLN)

Comment: while trivia like date of birth, specialty, medium etc, might be regarded as convenient for navigation, this is an invalid argument per . Furthermore they are |directory-type information easily found in the articles on the individuals concerned
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL||WP:NOT)

Comment: would the expansion of the table created for Australian pundits satisfy people's concerns that the article "fails to meet 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: The nomination is the worst kind of punditry being subjective opinion made without effort, evidence or expertise.  It utterly fails  as a quick search shows that there are good sources for this and so I had no difficulty in sourcing 15 entries in as many minutes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)