Deletion of List of pundits (2nd nomination)

Comment: The nomination offers no new evidence - just some vague musing about the title.  But title changes are made using the move function, not the delete function.  The topic is clearly notable as it only takes a moment to find a complete book on the subject: ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Cq7bA4QiAo8C The Political Pundits''.  |AFD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: and possible '''Rename''' to List of political commentators (which now redirects into Pundit). I call for a speedy keep as no policy is referred to in the initial nomination. It's a keeper as the entry satisfies the four criteria of ist: Information, Navigation, Development, and supplements categories. People may not like political punditry, but it is a fundamental part of the news business today and has a long history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: per nom. Inclusion criteria are unmanageably broad and vague. Sources that provide lists of pundits are tendentious. Impossible to achieve . Better to have lists of commentators with specific topics about which they write commentary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: pundit" is far |too vague: are you a pundit if you appear on a talk show once? if one source calls you a "pundit", once? the fact that in three years since the previous AfD ended in a '''rename''' no one has been able to or been willing to follow that consensus is evidence that it is an unworkable premise, and since both the articles involve |living people, keeping the lists based on the unworkable premise is unacceptable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:BLP)