Deletion of List of redundant expressions (2nd nomination)

Comment: Many, if not all, of these expressions can be sourced to |reliable sources indicating that they are considered redundant. Even if an expression's redundancy is a matter of ''opinion'', it is notable and sourced opinion, which is allowed under both |original research and |neutral point of view policies. Multiple reliable sources have lists of redundant expressions which independently cite some of the same examples, such as "ATM machine" and "PIN number", making this list quite different than the various hypothetical non-encylopedic lists given above. For examples, see ''http://www.amazon.com/American-Heritage-Book-English-Usage/dp/0395767857 The American Heritage Book of English Usage'', pp. 59-65, and ''http://www.amazon.com/Write-Right-Desktop-Punctuation-Grammar/dp/1580083285 Write Right!: A Desktop Digest of Punctuation, Grammar, and Style'', pp. 156-158. The books ''http://www.amazon.com/Words-You-Thought-Knew-Misunderstood/dp/1580629415 Words You Thought You Knew: 1001 Commonly Misused and Misunderstood Words'' and ''http://www.amazon.com/Common-Errors-English-Usage-Brians/dp/1887902899 Common Errors in English Usage'' also include many examples of redundant expressions. Given the wide availability of sources, any problems with this article are solved by editing, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: The nomination in invalid as it concerns the article's |current, rather than potential state; likewise the above !votes errantly cite |problems with the current article as reasons for deletion. Why would a referenced list of redundant expressions be worthy of deletion, given that Redundancy (language)|the topic the list pertains to is notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL||WP:PROBLEMS)

Comment: Violates numerous policies such as Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary|no language guides, |no trivia and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory|no repositories. I think arguing about sourcing is irrelevent, this is after all a list of facts, or can be. But we have more than enough encyclopoedic coverage of this topic at Pleonasm and Redundancy (language), with examples. I like the analogy above to List of jokes which would be similar in terms of interpretation and scope, but of course, |other stuff doesnt exist is no defence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:OTHERSTUFF)