Richard Howe (officer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted.

I would like these two deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY.

I'm not familiar with these articles, couldn't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz.

Some discussion at User_talk:Joe_Decker#Bedford_Modern_School.2C_sockpuppets_and_WP:DRV

Draft is at User:Joe Decker/Richard Howe (officer) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore The fairest thing would be to restore, with optional relisting. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore WPASR is my preference as well, as the original closer. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The closer was contacted here, but has not responded.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• References

• Kenneth Sandford (5 June 2003). Mark of the Lion ePub. Penguin Books Limited. p. 278. ISBN 978-1-74228-702-7. Retrieved 2014-11-11. If any reasonable avenues for escape were left, the brilliance of Dick Howe and his helpers would have discovered and exploited them.
• "Escape Officers – Colditz". colditzcastle.net. Archived from the original on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2014. For over three years Dick Howe was in charge of all escaping; Colonel Guy German's choice of him was justified for with the exception of Airey Neave, all the British who escaped and made a home run did so during his term of office.
• David Harrison (23 October 2010). "Lothario Army captain sent coded 'love letters' from Colditz". The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 2014-11-11. Two of his fellow prisoners, Dick Howe and Rupert Barry, realised that if they could make the code more sophisticated they could communicate with London and pass on information they picked up from military gossip.
• S. P. Mackenzie. Colditz Myth C. Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-19-153223-8. Retrieved 2014-11-11. Meanwhile the BBC was preparing to air the second series of Colditz, starting on 7 January 1974. As part of the publicity campaign the Radio Times had funded the first return visit to the actual castle by four ex-prisoners—Pat Reid, Dick Howe, Rupert Barry, and Jack Best—in late 1973, and had then gone on to sponsor a special 'Escape from Colditz' exhibition at the Imperial War Museum, due to open on the same day that the first episode aired.
• Patrick Robert Reid (1953). Escape from Colditz: The Two Classic Escape Stories: The Colditz Story, and Men of Colditz in One Volume. Lippincott. Retrieved 2014-11-11. 35 pages matching Howe in this book
• A Google book search using ["Dick howe" colditz] turns up 17 ghits, all of which are good hits with most showing WP:GNG material in the snippet.
• Caveat.  I'm pretty sure that the death date of 1959 in the Userfied article is wrong, but I have not found either a birth or death date.

Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) Overturn to redirect, (2) Boldly un-redirect, (3) Move article to Dick Howe  A non-deletion redirect was the consensus at the AfD.  The deletes argue that the topic should not have a stand-alone article, without making delete arguments.  The keeps argue that there is no policy basis for a deletion, and the arguments are consistent with covering the topic as non-notable at Laufen Six or Oflag IV-C.  And the last !voter sums up the preceding consensus as Redirect.  Since there was no merge, content organization of the encyclopedia becomes a problem, so restoring the article as proposed above is no different than a bold un-redirect subsequent to the AfD.  I'm not opposed if content contributors subsequently renew the consensus of a non-notable topic with a merge, perhaps to Laufen Six.  I have read Reid's book Escape from Colditz, so I am aware that this is an epic war story before being popularized by the television series and the board game.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC) revised 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. I think the sock got this one passed us. The refs look ok so I'm not persuaded by redirect arguments. Restore and if someone wants to afd again, so be it. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Herbert Roff Newton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See above for Richard Howe (officer)

Draft is at User:Joe Decker/Herbert Roff Newton

Notability would seem to depend on how significant we see the role of Deputy Lieutenant for a county. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore The fairest thing would be to restore, with optional relisting. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore WPASR is my preference as well, as the original closer. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Sock puppet games lead to unfair deletion. Szzuk (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Android devices (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted solely because the list in its present form was "an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness". No editor acknowledged the possibility that the list could be rebuilt with more rigid and strict criteria (including possibly, being limited to notable smartphones that have an article already, etc.), and divisions based on either era or shipped version. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The delete rationales is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are very weak (same with the keep rationale), but looking at the article, there is nothing salvageable, so it's better to WP:TNT and start from scratch. Endorse Deletion. Secret ^account 03:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily undeleted for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It is not true that the list will forever be incomplete, because at some point in the future Android devices will be superseded and no new ones will be developed. Furthermore, that;s insufficient reason for deletion, as most lists except of defined historic events in the past or geographic subdivisions will be incomplete. A list like this doesn ot need to contain only notable products--it can be a suitable place to redirect the sub-notable. It shouldn;t contain the utterly trivial; but if it does, they can be removed. This is much better than starting from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse given the discussion it's hard to see how the closer could have closed it any other way, the solitary keep is weak regardless of the relative strength/weakness of the deletes. As a "Comparison of" it's going to be pretty useless, there is no way such a huge number of potential items could be a meaningful comparison in this form. If someone wanted to covert this into a "list of" then userfication, tidying up etc. and doing that would perhaps not unreasonable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I concur with 86.2.216.5 Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse "at some point in the future Android devices will be superseded and no new ones will be developed" seems extremely shaky to me. This article seems unmaintainable given how many Android devices already exist. Shii (tock) 03:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's not the basis of my arhument--it's really directed only at the pointlessness ofu sing thecriterion of ("never complete" The basis of my argument is that there isn othing wrong with the list which can be remedyignby some judicious deletions. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/See Also: An attempt (disclosure: by me) to get Comparison of smartphones deleted under similar rationale failed. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps so, but WP:WAX won't really help in arguing this merits its own article Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer I agree with DGG that incompleteness by itself is not necessarily fatal, however, that is hardly the only argument provided, at least given a broad reading of the discussion. I read some of the arguments as invoking various forms of WP:NOT, arguments about article size. I also note that LISTN provides an unusual degree of subjectivity with respect to what list topics the community does and does not consider encyclopedic and notable. Had I been contributing my own personal view, I might have suggested that a better approach would be to break this list down into a variety of articles based on device type (List of Android smartphones, List of android tablets, etc.), which might have addressed the article size concern and left the resulting articles to appear more maintainable. I also would imagine that there are actually sources that compare android phones v. one another, whereas I imagine there are very few sources which compare Android smart phones vs. Android game consoles, if my imagination should happen to be correct here, the "by device type" split would result in topics which more cleanly met the usual indications of list notability. Nothing in my close precludes this outcome, as far as I'm concerned. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It was closed the only way it really could have been given both number and strength of arguments. Besides, the very concept of an article that aims to compare over 19,000 distinct devices, with more appearing every day, is patently silly. And then there's the factor that many of them are patently incomparable: How does one meaningfully compare a gaming tablet, a smart refridgerator, and a baby monitor? Answer: you don't, and work on something less ridiculous like articles for the many notable devices that currently have none. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  [1] states that this article has had

Total number of edits 2,787

Total number of distinct authors 1,313

Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist That was a horrible discussion and I can't find a meaningful policy-based argument. A lot of effort by a lot of people was put into that article. It would be a shame to delete it because of what (IMO) comes down to a !vote rather than a policy-based discussion. This isn't indiscriminate (or at least no so clearly indiscriminate a vague WP:WAVE will do, and "we aren't consumer reports" isn't a valid argument. Sadly the keep argument is just as bogus. Given that the closer has some ideas about how to fix this, I think we should have another discussion. I'd not be shocked if that results in deletion, but after this DRV, I think we'll get a lot better arguments on both sides. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I don't come to DRV often, but my understanding is that it's mainly for challenging the closing admin's interpretation of consensus, fixing procedural errors, or bringing up substantial bits of new information. I.e. not because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment; The rationales given, while not very thoroughly argued, are pretty standard versions of WP:NOT and WP:SALAT. The only expression of keep was based on Android's popularity. I'm not sure what room there was for any other close unless the closer were to relist is based on his/her own distaste with the result/discussion so far. All that said, as I said my experience with DRV is marginal and it may be the case that if someone feels like a particular argument should've been more strongly argued at AfD, that counts as "new information." In that case Relist seems perfectly reasonable. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, there was no other possible way that this discussion could have been closed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Siam–Burma Death Railway (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as a non-admin closure, although consensus was far from clear. There was only one !vote to redirect, which doesn't seem appropriate, since it's an implausible search term not mentioned anywhere in the target article. Paul_012 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not necessarily contesting the outcome; this is more of a procedural request, since I don't think consensus was clear then. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure what the outcome of this will be, but it should be noted that consensus in AFD's is not solely determined by headcount. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse If this had been an admin close I'd have judged it as being within discretion although I would have preferred no consensus. An advantage of a non-admin close is that the history was not deleted which is something an inexperienced admin might have done. I can't see that the close was done within the limits suggested by the WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures essay but that is more a matter of remark to the closer than a reason for overturning. Thincat (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist for another week. "Referencing is not sufficient" was not a valid reason for deletion. First, the question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources, not whether the article is sufficiently referenced. Second, the sufficiency of coverage in reliable sources is a matter for AfD participants; it is not for the closer to superimpose their own judgement on top of that. If it was felt that MQS's two sources were insufficient, the appropriate response was a delete !vote. In light of PoW's keep opinion following the presentation of those sources, and the lack of any refutation of MQS's arguments and sources despite MQS pinging the delete !voters that preceded him, I think a redirect closure is on quite shaky ground. Agree with Thincat though that redirect was better than delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Deletion reason given in the close is not a reason for deletion. The article is not hopeless, though most of the content duplicates the article on the railway; the rest might well be appropriate if the film is notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment – recommend proceed with partial merge  See WP:DRVPURPOSE, which states,

Opining that the current search term is implausible, implies that there is a more-plausible search term.

Here is a link to the article just before it was redirected.  One of the sentences there is, "It is a fact that no words can describe the manner in which the Japanese army treated the dead and the dying."  Like the rest of the article, it has no inline citation.

What would be helpful at this point is to get the framework of the information about this documentary into a section at the target article.  If there is more to be said, a spinout can be developed by moving the article to userspace or draftspace (thus retaining attribution history).  Unscintillating (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, and trout closer. If I were closing this AfD, my first choice would have been to relist it for another week, my second would have been to call it No Consensus. If I were participating in the AfD, I might have well !voted for redirect per Shoessss, but that's sure not how I would have closed it. I'm all for finding a useful redirect, per WP:ATD-R, but the steps in that process are to first determine that there is consensus to not keep the article, and only then figure out if a redirect makes sense. I don't see any such consensus here.

As for the trouting, I'm looking at User talk:SNUGGUMS. This appears to be the third non-admin closing by this editor which was outside the guidelines of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and had to be voided. Please either stick to non-contentious closings, or ask for a mop of your own at WP:RfA. If the community approves, then you'll have the right to make the close calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is what WP:ATD-R says,

I see no functional difference between this closing and a "No consensus" closing that added a WP:BOLD redirect as per WP:ATD-R.  WP:ATD-R states that the "the talk page" is the place "to reach a consensus".  WP:DRVPURPOSE states that the "talk page of the redirect target" is the place to "seek consensus".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - one person suggested redirect, with no rationale at all. Closing it that way is clearly untenable, but it should be noted that without just headcount, redirect has nothing going for it at all in the discussion. Discussion was trending towards keep, though since I can't read Tamil I can't speak much to how convincing the keep position is. WilyD 18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist but no trout. This is not clearly a BADNAC, but it's an aggressive enough call that the community, per NAC, is unlikely to accept it from an inexperienced closer. I have some sympathy for the result, however--the Tamil sources do appear to be routine event coverage and do not provide, near as I can tell, signficant coverage of the film. (I would have closed NC or relisted, myself, probably the former.) --j⚛e decker^talk 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaret (Justin Timberlake song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Even though it had been outlined how this song does not meet notability criteria per WP:NSONGS, none of the "keep" voters had rationales complying with notability criteria for songs, and thus their rationales were unconvincing. To be specific, it states Coverage of a song within the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. All but one "keep" voter completely overlooked this. There is also a note saying The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. Aside from album reviews, this only gets brief mentions in sources. This is the part that was completely overlooked by all voters. One voter did acknowledge there were mostly album sources, but overlooked the fact that the non-album review sources only mentioned the song briefly. I told this to the non-admin who closed the discussion, but the closer stood by the decision to keep. Given the notability criteria outlined above and how Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, this should NOT have been closed as a "keep" when it clearly failed the inclusion criteria. This should be overturned to redirect, though no prejudice against deletion of article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm the non-admin who closed the article. In the discussion, all five of the respondents favored keeping the article and there was no support for a redirect. The various arguments for keeping the article included the fact that it had charted (the highest being #18 on the US R&B Songs), that it had a few sources that were not album reviews and that it was a legitimate fork containing information that was not in the album article. I closed it as keep do to the strong consensus toward that outcome and because some valid justification had been given for not deleting or redirecting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attempts to justify keeping weren't convincing, otherwise I wouldn't have listed this for DRV, even though all voters felt it should be kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This could simply have been renominated in a month or so. It's much simpler than coming here. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DGG is correct, sometimes I think it's better to come here though, since part of the decision here should/could be of help to a closer for future reference. In this case it's going to pretty difficult to close an xfd where everyone bar the nominator says keep, so the renominate later path seems the best way to go. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with leave to renominate at AfD. The DRV rationale is pretty much "I was right; the keep !voters were wrong". And you probably were right. But the application of notability guidelines is done through consensus, especially as they are guidelines and not policy. An AfD is not an argument between two sides in which the closing (non)admin adjudicates a winner by reference to a rigid set of guidelines. Rather, it is a consensus-building exercise in which at least a "rough consensus" is required to delete an article where there is no overriding policy (as opposed to guideline) imperative. Guidelines guide that consensus-building process but don't necessarily control it. And that's especially the case for the minor guidelines like WP:NSONG (WP:GNG, on the other hand, is so entrenched now that it is pretty much a policy). As DGG says, renomination is likely to be a more fruitful course here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is the idea of renominating for deletion, but WP:ONLYGUIDELINE isn't a good argument for deletion discussions as it overlooks the insight and value that guidelines bring. Even if guidelines and policies are separate things, WP:ONLYGUIDELINE basically comes off as an unconvincing excuse to disregard guidelines. Guidelines do exist for a reason, so it is ideal to put them to use. I can't think of any reason to keep/endorse aside from WP:ILIKEIT. There is also the policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says Wikipedia isn't just a random collection of information. This is essentially an WP:INDISCRIMINATE article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse To require the notability guidelines to be used as a set of rules is, of course, in breach of the guidelines. And I find the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument very unconvincing, even bizarre, when that policy says "An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on." There seems to me nothing random about this article and it meets the requirement in the same policy which says "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." The consensus at AFD was to keep the article (and it will be next time as well!). Thincat (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If not using guidelines, why would they exist in the first place? They're not exactly meant to be disregarded. I was using WP:INDISCRIMINATE to say that not every subject is going to warrant its own article. WP:Consensus is defined not as a vote, but as decision-making while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the guidelines are here to help us interpret the policies wisely, and the policies are to help us build an encyclopedia. Do you not see that in this case that reducing the article to a redirect would actually go directly against the idea of providing encyclopedic context? Maybe the topic is too unimportant to deserve a place here but that criterion for inclusion was abandoned years ago. Thincat (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic ≠ notable. Notability criteria exists for a reason. WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - sources are pretty weak sauce, but they're not quite so bad that it's implausible people find it meets WP:N. With the headcount totally in favour of keeping, there's not really another way to close. Also, echoing the above, trying to work WP:INDISCRIMINATE into the overturn rationale makes it almost impossible for me to even take it seriously; when someone flings obviously inappropriate acronyms against the wall hoping they'll stick, it's a sure sign their actual argument is weak or non-existent. WilyD 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Headcount does not by itself determine consensus, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't. But when policy is in the "could go different ways" regime, headcount matters a lot more than when policy strongly favours a particular outcome. Similarly, since this really a content organisation question (article about the song, or redirect to album where the content about the song will go), rather than a content inclusion/exclusion question, headcount weighs more heavily than it would in a content inclusion/exclusion question. WilyD 07:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The nominator is arguing here, Not only were all of the participants in the AfD wrong, but the closer was wrong too for not figuring out that everybody else was wrong. Sorry, that doesn't fly. If you really feel the AfD participants didn't understand the guidelines, bring it back to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This appeal was poorly considered. The guidelines are just that, guidelines. To quite a famous movie, "Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway." To get more specific--special notability guidelines are always in tension with the general notability guideline, and both those guidelines are always properly interpreted in balance with each other and in balance with the underlying principles (neutrality, verifiability, etc.) that the guidelines are attempting to help uphold. In this case, while the claim this DRV is based on is actually disputed in the AfD discussion (last opinion), even if that opinion is strictly incorrect, participants may have, quite properly, looked at the breadth and type of sources, the specifics of what was said, and properly concluded that the underlying needs for enough coverage to write a neutral and verifiable article were met, and as a result, they may have chosen to disregard the specific guidance in NSONGS. In fact, I suspect that is precisely what happened here, even if they didn't think out the result in wiklawyering terms the way I just did. This sort of broader tension between community consideration of a specific case and community consideration of a general case is part of the reason that WP:IAR is a pillar. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I will add that properly balancing these is *hard*. The community balances WP:ENT against WP:GNG far differently than it balances WP:PROF against WP:GNG. Which can be frustrating if one is looking for easy answers. I wish that were better codified, but it's not, to a large extent, that balance is something that one learns through long and painful experience. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Only guidelines" is an argument to avoid per WP:ATA as it is really just little more than a poor excuse for disregarding guidelines, and underestimates the insight and value that guidelines bring. There'd be no point in guidelines if they aren't put to use. They exist for a reason, and certainly weren't made to just be ignored. I can't think of any convincing reason not to abide by specific notability criteria that was made to prevent certain articles (such as this) from being created. Endorsing this closure is inappropriate when it had been specifically outlined how it doesn't meet inclusion criteria for articles. Specific notability criterion are basically WP:GNG plus additional varying requirements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You miss one of my strongest points here. The "insight and value that guidelines bring" is in a very large part an explanation of the circumstances in which it may be possible to meet WP:NPOV and WP:V, which are policies. Notability guidelines exist in part to insure there is enough coverage to meet those policies. By suggesting that the latter policies are meaningful, I am upholding that insight and value, not disregarding it. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I didn't previously mention is the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states that not everything is going to warrant its own article. Notability criteria supplements WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Just because it is neutral and reliably sourced doesn't necessarily indicate it should be added. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that invoking NOTDIRECTORY here misses the point of NOTDIRECTORY so much that I'll stop discussing this at this point. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 20:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Looks like an uncontentious keep, I'm not sure what it is doing here. Sometimes editors get caught up in guidelines. A very cursory glance at the article and the afd is all it really needs. I can't see any point in this being taken back to afd, it will end in the same way. Szzuk (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not the first time this issue has come to DRV, as I recall, and I don't believe this guideline has ever been held to trump a contrary AFD consensus. The guideline language at issue is a relatively recent addition that likely didn't receive enough scrutiny in discussions that focused mainly on chart-related criteria; it demonstrably lacks broader community support, and its more absolute language needs toning down to more correctly reflect GNG principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]