" 
 ::I don't see why you'd find such a thing amusing, nor why you think my question might've been rhetorical (or even ""retorical"", as you put it). Such decisions should be based on policy, and not contradictory ""precedents"" that are not evidently documented, nor the subjective judgments of button-pushers who don't seem to take the discussion into account. Can you point me to these precedents?    
 :Hi Nightscream, please forgive my tone in the last message - I had assumed (as you have been here longer than me) that you were aware there is no such criteria page and were obliquely questioning my Ffd closure. The one used in these cases is the WP:NFCC list. What I mean by amusing is that, if we had a dot-point criteria, then the subsequent interpretative arguments would (I think) descend into the normal Wikidrama which you can either be amused by or angry at...I chose amused. As a fellow button pusher you know that all policies are descriptive of practice rather firm dictates and usually judgment is required. I took into account the arguments—the precedents I refer to are those from a great many Ffd/Ifd closures; there is no single page that I can point to. I am aware with these Ffd closures, as for all of them, that the non-free criteria are intended to exclude most non-free criteria and good reasons are needed to keep them. I'll discuss the closure of these two at  to keep this all in one place -   "