Deletion of Stolpersteine in Neratovice

Comment: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists #Appropriate topics for lists gives us good guidance on content of stand-alone lists: {{tq|"Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in |What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge."}} The nominator is entitled to their opinion along those lines, but I will disagree: a reading of DIRECTORY (the relevant section of ) spells out seven classes of directories that Wikipedia is not: '''Lists of loosely associated topics'''; '''Genealogical entries'''; '''Yellow Pages'''; '''Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business'''; '''Sales catalogues'''; '''Non-encyclopedic cross-categorisations'''; and '''Simple listings without context information'''. There is no way that the list of Stolpersteine in Neratovice fits any of those groupings. In fact, it is clear from reading the amplifications given with each of those classes that NOTDIRECTORY excludes a very different sort of list from the one under debate. I would urge anyone uncertain about the place of this article in Wikipedia to read DIRECTORY  and see for themselves that is not an applicable rationale for deletion here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: This is a list of the ''Stolpersteine in Neratovice''. It is not a series of stand alone articles for individual people. I do not see that  applies to such lists. In fact, Wikipedia features numerous lists of people who have received certain awards, but do not meet  individually. For example, the consensus established  at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles has it, that  KC recipients who do not meet WP:SOLDIER #2-8 and who do not meet the GNG should be redirected to the respective lists. Some of these lists have been promoted to ''FA''-status, not at least because of their comprehensiveness. If there are concerns that such lists are cases of , those concerns should be discussed at the proper boards of discussion instead of following what seems to amount to a piecemeal approach of individual AfDs. I might add that the Stolpersteine-project is supported by extensive research, often sponsored by official agencies. The database hosted by holocaust.cz, for example, is sponsored by the German embassy in the Czech Republic. So the main argument for deletion seems to be , which is not a valid argument. Maybe the article should be moved to List of Stolpersteine in Neratovice, though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL||WP:BIO||WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT)