Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pundits (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

List of pundits
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Also nominating:
 * Also nominating:

'Pundit' is excessively vague and ill-defined. These lists may as well be titled 'list of prominent media figures' or 'list of people who frequently appear on TV', which shows how arbitrary it is. Previously kept at AFD in 2009, but with the suggestion that it should be renamed to a more precise title. That hasn't happened. I admit something like List of political pundits would be slightly more workable, but most of the same problems with vagueness would remain. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought, these lists also possibly raise BLP issues, as pundit may be considered a slightly derogatory term, and many of the entries on these lists aren't even sourced. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says it may be derogatory in England. In America, it is not, nor apparently anywhere else.  Are they not known as pundits in England though?  If there is another word seen as more polite to cause them, then where the English are listed, use that word instead.   D r e a m Focus  21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not derogatory in England either. The OED has it as "In extended use: an expert in a particular subject or field, esp. one frequently called upon to give his or her opinion to the public; a commentator, a critic." Warden (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's more normal to refer to political pundits as "commentators" in the here UK but this is the first time I've heard the claim that "pundit" is derogatory. Dricherby (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The nomination is a twofer as it involves List of pundits and List of pundits in the United States. Is that following policy? Crtew (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep 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: The Political Pundits.  AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument. I can find telephone books all over the place, but does that support: List of people in the telephone book...ahem, no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your example is the straw man as the work I cite is not a directory. Here's some description to give a feel for it and its relevance: "The Political Pundits surveys in detail the small, elite group of persons who comment on and analyze politics in newspapers and newsmagazines, on radio and television, through lectures, books, and all other forms of political media. Dan Nimmo and James E. Combs discuss the key political role pundits play, their methods and strategies ... In Part One, the discussion focuses on four generic types of pundits: Priests, Bards, Sages, and Oracles. Part Two identifies three pundit roles: as technicians, as members of the Chattering Class, and as media critics. Each chapter provides examples, cases, and profiles to demonstrate the dominance of punditry. ..."
 * there is no evidence that such a definition and application is generally or even widely used. So the list would need to be renamed List of pundits as defined by James E. Combs. That's not really workable, either.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The book is evidence. It's a respectable book from a respectable publisher — part of the Praeger Series on Political Communication.  It is exactly what we look for as a reliable source.  And there are plenty more such as the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections which demonstrates the encyclopedic nature of the topic.  Where are your reliable sources?  You and the other naysayers just seem to be giving us your personal opinions. Warden (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Both list articles are fine. It list people with their own Wikipedia articles, all known for the same thing, and list information about them.    D r e a m Focus  21:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This list is terrible. Narrowing scope to "political pundits" and renaming accordingly might be a good start, but the non-progress since last AfD (in 2009) suggests no one wants to take care of this list. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, but delete those that aren't properly sourced. Forbes published its own list of American pundits. The Wall Street Journal is keeping track of their prediction success rate. It may need to be split into sections, though: politics, sports, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a disgusting article that looks like it's read the definition of "NPOV" and has set out to violate it as thoroughly as possible. Of the 33 folks it accuses of being a pundit, it sources 2 of them - about 6% of them. And it's downright slanderous - if someone called me a pundit they'd promptly be sloshed around the chops. Get rid of those which cannot be sourced, and then we can think about whether we require an article on it.-- Laun  chba  ller  22:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, you do know that 'NPOV' stands for 'Neutral Point of View', right? It's not a synonym for 'biased' or 'indiscriminate'; rather the reverse. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did know. I personally take 'pundit' as being very offensive, so for me, this is mass-slander.-- Laun  chba  ller  09:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm now more awake, and have read your objection more clearly. I agree that this article is very far from NPOV. However, I've never encountered this suggestion that pundit is 'very offensive' anywhere outside WP talk pages. What's your basis for this belief, if you don't mind my asking? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, 'pundit' gives the impression of someone giving their opinion. It's not really that it smacks of being offensive, it's that every other word that could be used instead has expert undertones. Use of it - to me, at least - means either one of two things: either you are too lazy to think of another word (in which case bugger off and go take an English class!) or you are making every effort to avoid it, which I would find incredibly insulting.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (converse)  @ 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (yak)  @ 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (rap)  @ 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * delete "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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. & TRPoD. "Pundit" is way too vague & ill-defined a term to be the basis of an encyclopedic list.--JayJasper (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, inclusion criteria cannot be defined. One is either a physician or not, one is either a news anchor or not. a pundit is variously defined, with no common definition available. A narrow definition could be the basis for a list, IF such a definition was agreed on. the word means too many things.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The meaning of the term is not clear. It's equally unclear that this could be fixed by renaming, since it's not self-evident that there's any commonality between the people on the list, which could be adequately addressed by a new name. And as I (and others) remarked last time this was debated: if a list of pundits doesn't have Nehru, what use is it? In short, this is an indiscriminate collection of stuff, and of no encyclopedic value. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The dictionary declares pundit as "3: a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media : critic".  So calling them "political pundits" would clarify what they are.   D r e a m Focus  06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Two problems: (1) At least some of these people are sports critics, not political figures at all; (2) There are still no sources, nor is it apparent that such a definition can be sufficiently well sourced. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Those aren't problems. (1) They can, as I have suggested, be separated into different sections (or lists), and (2) there is no lack of sources, merely the effort needed to incorporate them in the list; in addition to Forbes and the WSJ, Newsweek, Washington Post, and Star Tribune all name some names, especially the Post. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Keep 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 WP:List: 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. Crtew (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to access the history of the article "List of political commentators" without success, but a message on talk dates back to 2006, while this nominated list is from 2009. Perhaps the better title was discarded at some earlier point? I couldn't really tell what happened from history. Crtew (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for merge back when only one person was on the list in 2006. And later on someone redirected it to Pundit (politics), which itself was renamed to Pundit (expert), and now redirects to simply pundits.    D r e a m Focus  20:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors here have raised valid points about renaming. Crtew (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete utterly subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the nom, and with the closer of AfD1, that it should have been renamed,so why was it brought here instead.? (the name, as Warden points out, is actually precise, but it seems to have caused some misunderstanding).
 * Delete per nom. Inclusion criteria are unmanageably broad and vague. Sources that provide lists of pundits are tendentious. Impossible to achieve WP:NPOV. Better to have lists of commentators with specific topics about which they write commentary. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete For the reasons explained above. This article is unfocused, subjective, and hopelessly difficult to reform. Better to delete and rebuild than attempt to restructure. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The inclusion criteria are too broad and vague. Just about every political commentator ever could qualify. Ray  Talk 18:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It only list those who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article.  D r e a m Focus  01:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's OK for the items in a list not to be notable; please see WP:LISTN. What's under debate here is whether the list is suitable for Wikipedia. As there are many sources of lists of pundits, it's clear that "list of pundits" is notable. This list's main difficulty is whether membership in the list can be determined in a verifiable, unbiased way. Can you shed any light on that? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove anyone from the list that isn't sourced. I searched for the first name on the list with the word "pundit" and found a reliable source to reference them right away.  We can also search for the terms "political commentator".   D r e a m Focus  17:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with nom, the meaning is too broad and there would never be an accurate list. Plus a majority of the list is unsourced anyways  Jay  Jay What did I do? 20:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: People who are reacting to the broad definition are responding to the term "pundit" and not to the term "political commentator", which is the more specific term for this occupation. Renaming of the list and deleting the list are two different issues. The list should have been renamed as many above are saying. Crtew (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that we have various categories for this already listed at Category:Political pundits  D r e a m Focus  01:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The category names are as bad as the name of this article. Crtew (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per User:AlexTiefling. Too vague and subjective to ever be of any use. "List of political commentators" or similar is also not really a solution, as User:RayAYang and User:Doktorbuk point out. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  17:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Another one of those indiscriminate, inaccurate, poorly-defined laundry lists that needs to die! p  b  p  18:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This list could be endless...and in practice it will totally random (as it is now). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The new tabular presentation helps a lot. However, I also believe it should focus on television commentators. All of the bloggers on the list should be deleted. This automatically limits the list. TV political commentary has been an essential formula in the TV cable business going back to the 1990s. Deleting this list makes no sense as the information is about a valid phenomenon. So I would change my rename above to "List of TV political commentators" to limit the scope. Crtew (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Furtheremore, listing William Safire is problematic, as he was an old-fashioned columnist and not part of the era of cable TV that gave rise to the modern pundit, or political commentator. Those like Safire should be immediately deleted along with the bloggers.Crtew (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2013 (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.