Deletion of -graphy (2nd nomination)

Comment: I also thought it was a no consensus close before relisting. Keep per Juliancolton and the  improvement work done by The Transhumanist. It is now sufficiently more than a DICDEF and thus is a glossary article. Note that the title is now a proper article title: Glossary of graphies and that -graphy is now a REDIRECT to it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEYMANN)

Comment: I commend Transhumanist for trying to save the article, but my !vote remains delete.  is clear: a dictionary is concerned with words, an encyclopaedia is concerned with the things the words describe. This article is still clearly about the words
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NAD)

Comment: and '''fix'''. This is not a "textbook case of ", it is a textbook case of an AfD submitted by somebody too lazy to think of ways to handle a difficult case. This could be a disambiguation page, or a redirect to a section, but it this would need editorial expertise. Submitting an AfD does not need editorial expertise. The question is, will Wikipedia benefit from -graphy being a redlink? I do not think so. The real question here is, what is the status of th stuff in :Category:Glossaries? Are these articles? Do they all violate ? We need a wider discussion of this and a more satisfactory solution than what we have now. This isn't something that can be solved in a bunch of isolated AfDs. If you really want to push this, you will need to AfD all of :Category:Suffixes, since there is no conceivable reason to delete an article on the suffix "-graphy" while keeping articles on other suffixes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICT)