Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Rename, keep. The main issue is that pundit is too large and vague a scope; needs to be recast as "political pundits" or something similar. That said, cats and lists are synergistic as per guidelines and WP:LIST, and such as distinction (while I find of dubious encyclopedic use) is still verifiable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

List of pundits
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The only redeeming feature of this article is that all the names are blue links. But it is utterly subjective and un-maintainable. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment many "List of ..." articles have a similar expansive scope, (see our template: {Dynamic list}: This list is incomplete which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness; you can help by expanding it.) and I am not sure that claims of "un-maintainability" fall within our parameters of deletion criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:LIST **DELETE** doktorb wordsdeeds 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No compelling, policy-based reason to delete. What part of LIST did I overlook that it fails? Townlake (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it actually fails at all three points listed under Lists. Punkmorten (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. The list serves an informational purpose and is a useful navigational aid for people who want to know more about the subject of pundits.  I'll admit I feel a little silly defending this, because I agree the list could theoretically stretch to the moon and back in length if it was ever completed... but if it's properly sourced - per DGG's good point - I think this is workable.  Perhaps with more stringent criteria than it currently requires. Townlake (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and source precisely, limiting it to people called such in multiple authoritative sources. But there is a  problem, that might make the article impossible: a great many people have been called so at  various times, so it may be usually difficult to find a good criterion. DGG (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely indiscriminate, unsourced, original research. It's clear that whoever wrote this has no idea about pundits. I would at least have expected to see Pundit Nehru on such a list! AlexTiefling (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I did create the article, I cannot take credit for writing the article. The content was removed wholesale from Pundit (expert) as potentially useful information that was not appropriate for the parent article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the figures listed in this article are talk show hosts, not pundits. This list is indiscrimiate and counfusing, and unfortunately I can forsee within a year this will become a cruftfarm where anyone who's ever appeared on cable news in a little box will be on this list.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears to be a non-encyclopedic, highly indiscriminate list. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is the worst kind of punditry being subjective opinion made without effort, evidence or expertise. It utterly fails WP:BEFORE 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.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Waaaay too open; this kind of information is best organized via a category (such as Category:Political pundits). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, since there seems to be some scope for debate about inclusion, a category would be inferior per WP:CLS: "There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion". See Category:American political pundits for example.  Is Oliver North really a political pundit? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If editors can agree on who qualifies, this could be a category, or perhaps a container for categories by country. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:CLS explicitly says "... Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other.". Colonel Warden (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I said if. The category (which, as you point out above, already exists) may also be a bad idea, but is probably worth keeping as an aid to navigation&mdash;that is another discussion. This article should be deleted either way. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The list guidelines are far more inclusionary than the category guidelines. If a category is appropriate, there is generally no good reason why a list would not also be appropriate, especially since a list can be annotated, and can be organized in ways that categories cannot be. This guildeine means what it says—categories are useful to keep lists maintained, and lists are useful to keep categories (when they are appropriate) maintained. Deleting one in favor of the other, except in cases of overcategorization, serves no useful purpose. DHowell (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand descriptions. I share DGG's concern that I could find many notable folks to add here. What would be helpful is applying wp:attribution and a description on each on their cultural significance and impact. -- Banj e  b oi   14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: ill-defined and unmaintainable -- how many opinions make you a "pundit"? Inherently WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  - as per User:Hrafn. How on earth is Tim Henman for example a "pundit" - he has co-commentated on a couple of tennis tournaments. - fchd (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Now changed my mind. Merge and redirect - take a few of the more notable pundits to the Pundit (expert) article, and then use this title as a redirect. - fchd (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * reply since when has one piece of inappropriate information in an article been cause to delete the whole article? Tag the item as needing a source or remove it from the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * reply it was stated "for example". I'd be of much the same opinion in relation to just about all the British entries on the list. Pundit to me means a lot more than some ex-sportsman brought in to be the summariser on a commentary. - fchd (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * request for comment - would the expansion of the table created for Australian pundits satisfy people's concerns that the article "fails to meet WP:LIST? -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, while trivia like date of birth, specialty, medium etc, might be regarded as convenient for navigation, this is an invalid argument per WP:USEFUL. Furthermore they are directory-type information easily found in the articles on the individuals concerned. Benefix (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pundit is not objectively definable, hence this is all un-verifiable and WP:OR and Subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not objectively definable? Townlake (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, I don't understand what this fails? As far as undefinable and OR, there is a reference to Forbes so that should settle that.Smallman12q (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. More reliable sources exist for this: see, for example, "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. DHowell (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: a blog is usually not a reliable source. In any case, the definition of "pundit" it outlines is too heterogeneous ("professional thinkers", "repurposed white collar professionals" & "performance artists") and too vague (all of the above classifications would include members who would not be generally considered pundits), to form the basis of a well-defined list. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: "1.A source of opinion; a critic": a political pundit", "2.A learned person." Pundit (expert) and "3. Hinduism. Variant of pandit." All qualify as pundits. The list does not people who are given the title of pandit/pundit like Pandit Nehru, it includes people who referred to as pundits by definition 1 and/or 2. There are thousands of people are pundits in their fields. XYZ person may be considered a pundit by ABC, but NOT by PQR. My point since pundit is NOT a formal title, one man's pundit may not be another man's pundit. Let us take Rush Limbaugh's example (given in the list). Reference: "US pundit addicted to painkillers" (BBC). For the LA Times, he is just "a field marshal in the Republican revolution" and "radio host", is NOT refefered to as a pundit. Same applies to others. Forbes uses the "pundit", does not mean the person is defined as "pundit", it means (s)he is praised as a pundit. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 11:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.