Deletion of List of political leaders renowned for their integrity (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . No indication the list, i.e. the grouping, is notable. Agree that inclusion is arbitrary and on dubious grounds: some such as Aung San Suu Kyi are based on the briefest of mentions in a sentence ripped out of context. No chance of ever being complete: I would think every country down the ages has at least as many politicians with integrity as e.g. those from the USA that are listed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Incompatible with .  Inclusion criteria are far too subjective
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: While there are some valid lists on Wikipedia with a subjective basis, such as Albums considered the greatest ever or List of films considered the worst, there is no long standing tradition of multiple reliable sources regularly publishing lists of political leaders with integrity, so I don't see how this article could ever be written to comply with 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: The page has been remarkably stable since the last discussion and there is not the slightest sign of it being an "edit war magnet" or "constant bickering".  Such claims are therefore blatantly false.  The topic is notable, being discussed in numerous sources such as ''Honest Politics'', ''Politics by Civil Means'', and ''Politicians, honesty and the higher amorality of politics'', and therefore passes .  The nomination introduces no new evidence or argument and there seems to be a disruptive aspect to it, contrary to ,  and , "''It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:HARASS||WP:POINT||WP:DEL)

Comment: as inherently subjective, with unclear inclusion criteria. Lists must make a case that their subject is notable; it is not enough to say that all the items in the list are notable (for whatever reason) and therefore any conceivable grouping of them |inherits inclusion-worthiness from those items. This list is a prime example of why. Carrite makes an excellent point regrading how we can distinguish a politician famous because of their honesty from one merely perceived to ''be'' honest but not famous solely for that reason, or where we should draw the line on that. I also think the list is an inevitable edit war magnet, where supporters of one party will edit war to remove politicians from a rival party and substitute their candidates more to their own liking. Finally, I think the article was ''extremely'' lucky to survive last time, as IMO consensus to delete was clearly established
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: Speculative , and how do we determine whether or not a person can make it onto this list? What makes for integrity and what makes for being renowned? There are also hundreds and hundreds of "political leaders" out there, well-known locally, nationally, internationally, or otherwise. As per above, list will never be complete. If we fail to include certain people, would it be an insult to them? Fails  as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)