This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments...

September 2011 (UTC) If you consider labelling transparent WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments as "WP:ITSNOTABLE" to be a 'tooth and claw approach' then we may have to agree...

the sources? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Note: This...

Billboard. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC) WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ITSNOTABLE. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:42, 13 April...

rebuilding of the church. --Ufinne (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE SnottyWong confer 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Keep Talk about churchs's...

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6). Most of the keep !votes are WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE, without giving any policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 17...

Will the closing nom note that the only "keep" votes have been saying WP:ITSNOTABLE and absolutely nothing else. Clear cut no-consensus at worst. Ten Pound...

game. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC) please see WP:ITSNOTABLE you have not demonstrated it has reliable sources to meet notability....

(talk) 18:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Note: The arguments above seem to be WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC) They ARE. See...

August 2008 (UTC) Comment — both above statements are nothing but WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. Without verifiable, third-party sources (Wikipedia is about verifiability...

(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Note:...

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Ummmm...

‎ The result was delete. Keep arguments boil down to WP:GHITS and WP:ITSNOTABLE. This is without prejudice to the creation of a redirect. Tim Song (talk)...

has provided any arguments more useful than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Avaya Secure Router 2330...

WP:PLOT-like fictional bio summary. Deproded with an invalid argument (WP:ITSNOTABLE). So here we go again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here...

unmaintained, unverifiable, erroneous, you name it. Prod contested because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)...

this page.‎ The result was delete. Most of the Keep comments are of the ITSNOTABLE variety Black Kite (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Knox Presbyterian...

deletion before, but the entire discussion basically consisted of WP:ITSNOTABLE without any reason or elaboration. I suggest this be redirected to The...

Doesn't seem notable. Previous AFD closed as "keep" in 2006 due to WP:ITSNOTABLE, but in its current form I'm not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did...

unmaintained, unverifiable, erroneous, you name it. Prod contested because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)...

(en-2) 12:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC) This entry should be invalidated per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Delete as unfortunately fails...

are we here exactly? Poeticbent talk 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE - notability is not conferred by usefulness. As for the "no question"...

idea how that ended at "no consensus", as the only Keep votes were WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments. Nothing I could find on this points to it being notable enough...

PROD and undeleted following this ridiculous request which duplicates WP:ITSNOTABLE to an extent of true beauty. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 14:05, 18 May 2011...

bother to look carefully enough SatuSuro 12:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please provide evidence of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 13...

Cook. Being extremely WP:BOLD here - The first !vote is basically WP:ITSNOTABLE, the other irrelevant as we ofcourse judge on notability not on whether...

keep an article. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong express 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Incorrect, the argument his not WP:ITSNOTABLE... the argument is notability...

free pass being an ambassador from India. you are basically saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. consensus has shown this is clearly not the case. have you done an actual...

published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. Last Afd in 2011 had only WP:ITSNOTABLE comments. No notability asserted. Venkat TL (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2022...

sources. --63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE. MuZemike (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Erm, there are no sources...

was delete. The main arguments in favor of keep were variations of WP:ITSNOTABLE without backup, and that this was a list with a lot of blue links. However...

(en-2) 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Note to Admin; discard the above per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO...

16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Closing admin; discard the above entry per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Delete - Subject's interviews...

Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 23:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Discard per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Delete per nom fails PORNBIO +...

Judo112 was given significantly less weight per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE NW (Talk) 19:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Ghost Zoids (edit | talk | history |...

delete the article, and the keep comments seem to be variations on WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [Hide this box] New...

editor thinks it "seems notable enough" without any indication why: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:48, 29 March...

(en-2) 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Note to Admin; discard the above per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Note to Admin; discard...

works are famous. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Famous how? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)...

regional Grand Prixs. -- WölffReik (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC) see WP:ITSNOTABLE. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar...

consensus. Relisting comment: Most of the "keep" !votes are WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE. More policy-based !votes are needed to close this as "keep" or even "no...

further edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was delete. WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument for keeping an article, but if reliable third-party...

vigorous rationale. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid rationale. The onus is on you to show how this concept...

consensus. Considering that all of the arguments are flatly WP:AADD (i.e. WP:ITSNOTABLE) I don't think it's worthwile continuing a discussion which as yielded...

four different suggestions here along with a couple of Keep votes of the ITSNOTABLE type. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) AfDs for this article:...

the majority, a number do have quite weak rationales and border on WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, there are enough well-argued comments...

further edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was delete. A few WP:ITSNOTABLE comments do not address the fact, pointed out by others, that there is...

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes all seem to boil down to WP:ITSNOTABLE, hence the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk)...

majority of "Keep" comments, but many stray too far towards WP:OSE and WP:ITSNOTABLE. If the article is to be merged, that is a discussion that should not...

to keep it updated. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Delete...

Where is the non-trivial reliable source coverage? Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE comes under arguments to avoid. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2014...

non-trivial found. Last AFD closed as no consensus in 2006 with mostly WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing policy-based in either direction. Ten Pound Hammer...

1999 and in 2003. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. please provide evidence of significant coverage...

"keep" !votes one says the parent subject is notable and the other is a WP:ITSNOTABLE vague wave. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Dia de Los Dangerous...

participation. Otherwise WP:JNN applies. There's too much of that (and also WP:ITSNOTABLE) happening in AfD discussions. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:25, 2...

fictional location passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Prod declined with 'WP:ITSNOTABLE" by User:Gameron46 whom I'll kindly ask to use a better rationale. Shortly...

result was delete. Every single Keep comment (bar one) here fails WP:ITSNOTABLE (as does the first Delete comment, to be fair). However, the Delete comments...

groups in Donbass.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Oppose: Using the words...

(en-2) 12:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC) This entry will be invalidated per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Delete. Fails PORNBIO without...

July 22, 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) This is not a WP:ITSNOTABLE argument; this is a WP:N...

result was delete. Two of the "(weak) keep" !votes boil down to just WP:ITSNOTABLE and I ignored them in the close. Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021...

is notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) See WP:ITSNOTABLE Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Delete does not...

discussion going on the correct footing, and avoid fallacies like WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 17 March 2010...

majority of "Keep" comments here but a significant amount of them are WP:ITSNOTABLE (or worse). Rather than re-list this again it may be better to revisit...

2008 was "no consensus" with all but one "keep" !vote being a simple WP:ITSNOTABLE. The only sources turned up in the last AFD were tangential one-sentence...

work but not deletion. John Kugelman (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Keep. Members of two notable...

KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE. Reliable sources need to be pointed out as such to indicate notability;...

the nominator has provided no policy-based reasons for deletion, per WP:ITSNOTABLE / WP:UGLY. ——SerialNumber54129 10:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Speedy Keep...

requirement here on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, no explanation of which notability criterion is being met. LibStar (talk)...

clearnet website. --dionyziz (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC). WP:ITSNOTABLE. You haven't said anything about why this particular site is notable....

arguing inherent notability when there is no guideline which says that. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough...

popular culture icons. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw...

undated comment was added at 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ADVERT. MuZemike (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The above...

outside finalizing on American Idol. No sources. Last AFD keeped through WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing else, with no one even trying to add sources. Ten...

strong case for keeping the article. Arguments for keeping included WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:USEFUL, and WP:VALINFO. The BLP concerns raised by the deletion side...

you find this topic notable? Your argument currently falls afoul of WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please link to the sources that establish notability. Thanks, Cunard...

the nominator has provided no policy-based reasons for deletion, per WP:ITSNOTABLE / WP:UGLY. ——SerialNumber54129 09:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Speedy Keep...

notable with the adweek and seattle weekly coverage. WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Re-Name My concern...

why she is not notable (WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE is the same fallacy as saying ITSNOTABLE), in essence not providing any argument at all, I think this is an invalid...

(UTC) Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Keep...

List of diplomatic missions of India. The "keep" !vites are a mix of WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:ILIKEIT (and one of them was by a blocked sockpuppet). Redirecting...

stronger than those for Keep, (b) many of the Keep votes are verging on WP:ITSNOTABLE, and (c) I am suspicious about a couple of the Delete votes, both of which...

found, though.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)...

were completely invalid reasons to keep, such as reasons based off WP:ITSNOTABLE and based on attacking the opposition). –MuZemike 20:58, 16 June 2010...

way after the House of Lords Act 1999. The 2014 AfD discussion was a WP:ITSNOTABLE fest. Source assessment follows. Pilaz (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)...

(talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Comment - As you've been told before WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid reason to keep!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2014...

was no consensus. Some of the Keep rationales are a little close to WP:ITSNOTABLE, but the better crafted ones mean that there is no way this AfD can end...

have not provided one source to back your claim, did you even look? WP:ITSNOTABLE not a reason for keeping. 15:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Delete all All are...

seems to pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC) @Govvy: er WP:ITSNOTABLE, please justify your view. WP:NOTAVOTE, after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka...

18:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC) seems notable is not the same as notable. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...

that the article's sources are in-universe and the Keep !votes (mostly ITSNOTABLE) don't provide any reason to contradict that suggests this does not have...

to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). Most of the Keep !votes are all WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:ILIKEIT which as we know are useless here, Overall consensus is to...

(UTC) Delete - per nom. Article is a promotional piece. The above WP:ITSNOTABLE comment is unconvincing. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)...

(companies) requirement. The 2006 AfD was closed as keep because of WP:ITSNOTABLE assumption, with no reference cited. The article hasn't improved and I...

arguments, instead bringing to the table variants of WP:GOOGLEHITS or WP:ITSNOTABLE. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Acorn Mobility (edit |...

2005, but all of the keep !votes in that were consisted solely of WP:ITSNOTABLE with no evidence of backing it up. The main claim to notability from the...

or evidence were not considered in making this determination. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Despite that, the remainder of comments indicate a consensus to keep...

17 October 2008 (UTC) Wow, you could keep an article so easily via WP:ITSNOTABLE back then compared to now. MuZemike (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)...

This editor always votes keep in porn-related AfD debates. See also WP:ITSNOTABLE. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC) No closing admin worth his/her...

you could point us at the sources you rely on, rather just asserting WP:ITSNOTABLE. Msnicki (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

of its predictions. Luvcraft (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE doesn't hold water. Prove it's notable... I dunno, maybe by FINDING SOURCES...

notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC) see WP:LONGTIME and WP:ITSNOTABLE. please provide evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar...

Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC) That argument not only fails WP:ITSNOTABLE, but you should assume good faith despite (as yet unfounded) accusations...

above appears to be a combination of WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITEXISTS, and WP:ITSNOTABLE. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Delete Subject lacks...

(talk) 07:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC) @Davidgoodheart: Please elaborate? WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply...

sources. Keep in mind that the only two "keep" !voters have just argued WP:ITSNOTABLE without anything else, so they're just talking the talk. Ten Pound Hammer...

to thoroughly read WP:BEFORE. —Hahc21 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC) So WP:ITSNOTABLE? And which part of WP:BEFORE has been violated? SplashScreen (talk) 06:10...

notable roles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Keep...

justifications, with sources if appropriate, currently the !votes are more like WP:ITSNOTABLE. Additionally, notability is not a judgement of importance Please add...

(talk) 07:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Comment You might want to read WP:ITSNOTABLE. Mathewignash (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Keep, this article...

there notable. JJ98 (Talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Relisted...

published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. Last Afd in 2010 had only WP:ITSNOTABLE comments. No evidence of notability was provided. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles...

recommended practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, plesae provide evidence of significant indepth coverage. LibStar (talk)...

significant coverage to meet notability. Your arguments are turning into WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT.LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Note: This debate...

The result was no consensus. There are some terrible WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes here (seriously people, if you're not going to justify your...

notable in aussie politics.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)...

Needs another look IMO. Last AFD closed as "keep" with nothing but an WP:ITSNOTABLE from the article's creator. One quartenary role in a TV movie and a couple...

disagree with you or anything, but you should probably have a look at WP:ITSNOTABLE, as arguments like the above aren't usually given too much weight by the...

Please note, that I didn't vote, "Keep, but expand", nor did I say WP:ITSNOTABLE; I provided a concrete, verifiable reason for my vote. You can certainly...

unmaintained, unverifiable, erroneous, you name it. Prod contested because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)...

other event pages Curler1200 (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please explain how this is notable. - The Bushranger One...

'Keep as it's notable. MountWassen (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)...

players of Middle Eastern descent. Marc87 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, then? (Also a smidge of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perhaps.) - The Bushranger...

- notable. Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 13:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE again. The assertion of notability needs support from the facts. Lots...

deletion. Yet the keep votes were not policy based - they simply repeated WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and like. IMHO the policy falls squarely on the...

the event appears notable. Mattlore (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)...

13:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Copypasted assertions of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:26, 29 August...

the worst points of WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:GHITS, WP:WAX, and WP:ITSNOTABLE and were ignored. Bottom line is that the consensus is that the article...

Neptune's Trident (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Take a look at WP:ITSNOTABLE which suggests that backup reasoning be explicated when making this assertion...

sources or explaining how notability is shown is not very helpful. See WP:ITSNOTABLE.JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Delete I have searched,...

The keep vote also admits that there is no coverage and uses the WP:ITSNOTABLE rationale. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC) The above discussion...

to speedy renominate. I'll note that I was not impressed with the 2 WP:ITSNOTABLE "keep" !votes and MQS's delete !vote is sound but the unevaluated source...

2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, and doesn't explain why or how they could pass WP:MUSIC. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not policy...

however, a stub.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, please provide evidence of sources to meet WP:ORG. The article is unreferenced...

presented, and sadly, the keep votes here are so far pretty useless (WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:KEEPPER, sigh). Still, the odds are that whatever country this temple...

Notable??? MikeyMoose (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Comment - See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Delete - Article...

delsorting even though it hadn't been listed] and no surprise votes WP:ITSNOTABLE and includes WP:ADHOM attacks of me. it's bordering on WP:WIKIHOUNDING...

result was delete. Every single Keep comment (bar one) here fails WP:ITSNOTABLE (as does the first Delete comment, to be fair). However, the Delete comments...

criterion of WP:WEB. Most keep !votes in the last AFD were merely WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT, with no real policy-based discussion either way. Ten Pound...

can't remember this in 2009! The previous keep !votes were more like WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC) The above discussion is...

but you have to say more than just "non-notable" as your reason. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Here you have given absolutely no reason for why you think the album...

notability guideline is met or not met. Not an opinion that something is WP:ITSNOTABLE by inventing your own criterion. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)...

Last AFD closed as no consensus; only keep arguments presented were WP:ITSNOTABLE, with one person digging up a one-sentence mention in Billboard and calling...

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE should be avoided. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Delete -...

voters were not adequately refuted, and many on the keep side relied on WP:ITSNOTABLE rationales. The article has sources, and these sources certainly demonstrate...

11 May 2011 (UTC) Delete, zero independent sources. Assertions of WP:ITSNOTABLE aside, there has been no credible demonstration of notability. Having...

have evidence of significant third party coverage? rather than saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Tough to provide Western...

this to satisfy the general notability guideline, and arguments of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:LOCALFAME are not valid in deletion discussions. We can mention...

voters haven't produced such sources, and instead seem to be a case of WP:ITSNOTABLE. We may be able to have an article on this in the future if reliable sources...

notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC) see WP:ITSNOTABLE. please provide examples of multiple articles? LibStar (talk) 22:54, 2...

2023 (UTC) Delete I know this is probably going to be kept because of ITSNOTABLE editors will go on and on about why this should be kept and overwhelm...

be deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Without non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, nothing is by our standards...

notability criteria. Much of the keep side relied on arguments like WP:ITSNOTABLE without refuting the points brought up by the delete side. NW (Talk) 21:28...

of arguments dictates the weight given to them, and simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE is not sufficient. The concerns of the nominator have neither been addressed...

insufficient for notability. Kept in last AFD almost entirely due to WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments; first !voter argued that the Escapist and Dot Net coverage...

Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:40, 23 September...

only in-universe style summaries. Prod declined with the assertion WP:ITSNOTABLE because its connected both to Conan and Cthulhu. Which IS pretty cool...

next season anyways. Sven Manguard Talk 04:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...

TWL) No reliable secondary sources found. Last AFD was laden with WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat •...

User:Staszek Lem did not provide a proper rationale for deletion (WP:ITSNOTABLE), and I just don't have time to do it for him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul...

consensus. Why No Consensus? Because quite a few of the Keep votes are WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:INTERESTING. However the amount of continuing coverage of this...

unmaintained, unverifiable, erroneous, you name it. Prod contested because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)...

2015 (UTC) thanks for finding sources, I will reconsider. However, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSINTERESTING are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 16:29...

article, however, they lacked a compelling rationale, relying mostly on WP:ITSNOTABLE. There are cases in which our usual standards for the inclusion of topics...

more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a sufficient argument to keep an article. More discussion required...

better. Previous AFDs closed as "no consensus" due to a myriad of WP:ITSNOTABLE-type votes. That it's broadcast on SiriusXM is not an argument in favor...

subject is notable. The article has to be improved.User:Lucifero4 WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Note: this article is anticipated...

"government initiatives are notable"), and your argument is unfortunately WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:39, 19 June 2016...

also WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. You need to say why. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul...

squadrons to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a helpful argument. Please point what significant coverage in reliable...

(dc̄) 23:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Delete last AfD is full of keep WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes. The relations are not subject to significant coverage failing...

(UTC) You just wrote 2 arguments to avoid in deletion discussions- see WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:INTHENEWS. Dragquennom (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Comment His...

source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid.Dwanyewest (talk) 02:36...

4 September 2015 (UTC) @Magi4444: You have to do more than to say WP:ITSNOTABLE. Which references are independent, reliable and provide in-depth coverage...

WP:N, seems legitimate--Sιgε |д･) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSINTERESTING are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:40...

FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The 2007 AfD was closed as keep with people saying WP:ITSNOTABLE and "many Google hits". I hope we have progressed beyond such baseless...

explain how it does not meet it, and your vote it therefore a simple WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:18, 17 June 2015...

December 2009 (UTC) on the basis of? please explain why. otherwise WP:ITSNOTABLE. do you speak Polish? did you understand those references supplied by...

source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid. I have responded to this...

sources found are all trivial, and all of the other "keep" !votes are WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)...

an emphasis of Weak) voters are using a mix of WP:JUSTAPOLICY and WP:ITSNOTABLE (just citing a policy without any reasoning as to why, and notable just...

This argument lacks any sort hard proof or examples. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSNOTABLE are not valid keep rationales, especially coupled with the fact that both...

previous AFD from 2010, which resulted in a no-consensus, were simple WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments, that would not really fly today. While the actual Legion (demons)...

requirements? LadyofShalott 02:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC) sounds like a WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Delete. Elementary schools...

(UTC) Keep - passes WP:GNG Spiderone 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE as in invalid AfD vote rationale. You have to say why you think he is...

more time to develop. DylanLacey (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:BIGNUMBER. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)...

(Check!) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Delete #6 was kept entirely via WP:ITSNOTABLE and #7 was thought to be POINTy. As for this nomination, I say good faith;...

(UTC) Keep. Passes GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument at AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|...

to exist. Sorry, but the arguments for article retention equate to WP:ITSNOTABLE thus far, and are not backed with any sources to qualify the stance. Notice...

considering the eHow-ish links mentioned above designed to scream WP:ITSNOTABLE). Nate • (chatter) 05:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Delete - Software article...

(talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Assertions of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. are not a very good argument. The WP:SPA above copy-pasted the same...

religious org in Pakistan. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please provide policy-based reasons for your vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke...

"Blah blah blah Mashable award blah blah". The last AFD had several WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:BIGNUMBER, with no arguments rooted in policy (and one that was...

criteria, have you actually done a search for sources, or is this WP:ITSNOTABLE? LibStar (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Or is it WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE...

considered and closed together. --doncram 17:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC) "It seems important"...

who are around this field. Beta M (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT are not reasons for keeping. where are the sources to meet...

being in other series as well. Dream Focus 09:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, then? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Delete I can see...

on Wikipedia's deletion policy. These included WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:BIG, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and arguments that showed a lack of understanding...

sources found. Song didn't chart. Prod declined for no reason other than WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)...

should be welcome. --XKV8R (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but ITSNOTABLE and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not arguments for retention. Yunshui (talk) 12:27...

pharmaceutical companies: Lek and Krka". Saying its is notable is a fallacy (WP:ITSNOTABLE. The fact that there are two 'big' Slovenian companies in foo business...

Seems reasonably notable. Warden (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)...

and "well-known" (as mentioned by keep votes) means nothing and is a WP:ITSNOTABLE error. Czar pretty much said why this shouldn't be converted to a list...

Andrew (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC) it is not a notable school. WP:ITSNOTABLE. WP:PRESERVE says nothing about not deleting primary schools. It is customary...

low reliability niche outlets), the keep arguments above are just WP:ITSNOTABLE.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:00, 15 March 2021...

arguments to keep was not backed by any sources and seemed more as WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. Second, the previous AfD was non-admin closed as a keep despite...

AfD as it's a nomination for merge. Second, nominator's argument is WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is a non-argument. Nominator has not demonstrated the lack of notability...

Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I agree...

depth of coverage. As for the Keep !votes above, the first is simply WP:ITSNOTABLE and the IP did provide several sources, though a lot of them also have...

BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Your argument is invalid - WP:ITSNOTABLE - this is not a vote. I explained that his position is not a criteria...

in deletion discussions, particularly the sections WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ITSNOTABLE. If you would like a good example, see User:GJohnston11's rationale for...

2024 (UTC) Keep Notable. Pasparfait (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Delete – fails notability guidelines...

zero reasoning not sources to establish notability. You're saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Right, it was Libstar who nominated...

Seems marginal. Figureofnine (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC) see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Delete, while I find the approach...

believe it's not independent enough to qualify for GNG. Ipr1: vague WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments (simply saying "it's notable" without backing it up with policy...

Merge to Robert A. Clifford, not independently notable, despite some WP:ITSNOTABLE claims above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC). Merge...

Delete Not notable. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 23:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Delete per nom, it's...

source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:23...

Keep - Noted sci fi author.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAVOTE. note to closing admin, this is part of a spree of 7...

discredited ones. Yours is a simple assertion of notability; but see WP:ITSNOTABLE. Also, look up the arguments in the previous AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25...

significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources, this vote is WP:ITSNOTABLE. SnottyWong confess 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Error. WP:SIGCOV is...

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC) WP:DONTQUOTEESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard...

seconds to visit Alexa. Steven Walling 20:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument, neither is WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer, his...

consensus" (2006, 2008, 2010), but the only "keep" arguments I see are WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:01...

which is clearly not enough. All of the other "keep" arguments were WP:ITSNOTABLE, but all of the "delete" arguments were WP:Not notable. Ten Pound Hammer...

this to Acupuncture. -A1candidate (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not borne out by the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and WP:GOOGLEHITSproves nothing...

Necrothesp (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC) it just seems you are using WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. I could turn up to any AfD and simply say I think this is or...

deletion discussions did not advance reliable sources, instead arguing WP:ITSNOTABLE while solely citing primary sources and lacking any independent sources...

2016 (UTC) Keep - Seems notable. J947 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)...

(talk) 13:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Assertions of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. are not a very good argument. The WP:SPA above copy-pasted the same...

Being one of four FLOSS PDF libraries does not make something notable, WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Keep, because we do...

May 2010 (UTC) Comment - this discussion seems to be an example of WP:ITSNOTABLE. Can anyone provide evidence for "Afflatus" being notable as a concept...

From what I see above, it reminds me a lot of the amusing example in wp:ITSNOTABLE. "Non-notable" or "Seems to be notable" are no reasons for deletion/keeping...

passes WP:GEOLAND; you're just waving your hands in the air and saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. Hog Farm Bacon 14:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate a...

absolutely deserves an article. Belchfire-TALK 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Keep - Passes...

--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC) This is not an argument. see WP:ITSNOTABLE.--Maashatra11 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Delete Per User:Peridon...

the GNIS entry is sourced to an old plat book. Before decrying that WP:ITSNOTABLE, please find clear proof that this passes WP:GEOLAND - That it was legally...

category. RomanSpa (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC) That's just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE, try again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:27, 16...

discussion was no consensus, 2010 discussion was filled with WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and other invalid rationales. Ten Pound Hammer •...

AFDs we have 4 keep !votes with the second one in the last AFD being an ITSNOTABLE vague wave. However, in neither one are there any arguments for deletion...

consider the facts. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. In what way does it pass the notability guidelines? The version you accepted...

themselves not good enough for RS status). There were also a number of WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes which were discarded. When reference to policy was made, a...

article needs some work.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Merge to Catholic Answers...

notable and unbiased in present form. Mr RD 15:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE ins't a valid reason for keeping an article. –Davey2010Talk 03:22, 14...

The subject is notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid rationale.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply...

you've done to just about every Transformers AfD just amounts to a WP:ITSNOTABLE, you know. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Notability - I'm...

there notable. JJ98 (Talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Relisted...

"significant coverage" of the term? As it stands your vote is classsic WP:ITSNOTABLE. Amisom (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Delete - not a notable phrase -...

January 2020 (UTC) Weak delete. Systemic bias aside, we cannot just say WP:ITSNOTABLE. We need proof that goes beyond just having a decent career. And I am...

Focus 16:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you Dream Focus for that bald WP:ITSNOTABLE statement -- just the sort of detailed, well-substantiated argument I've...

WP:NMUSIC. ReaIestTruth (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Comment WP:ITSNOTABLE. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)...

as Transphobia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC) See WP:ITSNOTABLE --Damiens.rf 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Keep That's not much of a nomination...

be kept. Sorabino (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Sorabino, Aha. WP:ITSNOTABLE according to whom? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:28...

kept!!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:PRETTY are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 13 April...

of the Pakistan Army per WP:ATD. Bearian and Necrothesp are making WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments not based in policy. WP:NSOLDIER was deprecated at an RFC, so...

for his country. 193.212.89.122 (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Keep, per Habst. We still have...

of notability are not usually enough to be considered notable (per wp:ITSNOTABLE). Thanks, dude. KDS4444 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Do you honestly...

of sources. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 15:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is a argument that has to be justified. Your "lot of sources" do not seem...

lots of articles do. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC) So WP:ITSNOTABLE and (unjustified) WP:ADHOM then? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:28, 8 July...

a No Consensus decision if not an outright delete, discounting the WP:ITSNOTABLE keep !votes. Even including TorrentFreak and Kotaku, there are insufficient...

cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC) I don't think WP:ITSNOTABLE is a helpful argment? Amisom (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Keep...

"main stream recognition, notability, and coverage". I could slap a WP:ITSNOTABLE onto the end of that. Goodvac (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I'm not...

source to assert any of these articles are notable. Simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is not going to make an article anymore valid. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:21...

notable. Jordanee155 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Delete. Saying WP:ITSNOTABLE doesn't override the fact that this person doesn't meet the standards...

LibStar (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC) basically you are saying WP:ITSNOTABLE with not supplying any sources to show WP:ORG or GNG is met. LibStar (talk)...

Zheng Wei (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, and the article's rating is irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only...

November 2011 (UTC) How? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't really a substantial vote. Can you elaborate? I'm looking at the...

Terry the chef directly and in detail – then your !vote is essentially WP:ITSNOTABLE. If I may just quote from that essay: "Simply stating that the subject...

required by GNG? In the absence of those, how does your !vote differ from WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)...

notable ---- nonsense ferret 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC) OK - you...

2020 (UTC) Which argument from the last AfD are you referring to? WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:KEEPPER, sigh --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here...

notable. Nor does asserting "the company is notable in Malta" a la WP:ITSNOTABLE. Finally, I would like to point out that TalentedMan is another brand...

explain exactly why this should be kept, rather than just copypasting WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes to every Transformers AfD? There's not a single Keep comment here...

with the exception of MCE89, the above "keep" !votes all boil down to WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:ILIKEIT and are not policy based. MCE89 unearthed some sources. Some...

why or providing verifiable sources, is of little if any value: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:32, 17 January...

Keep: Notable --Reference Desker (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument. Try again, n00b. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and...

in-depth coverage required for GNG. The !vote just above boils down to WP:ITSNOTABLE. If this journal indeed has such an impact, then where are the sources...

Seems like a trivia list. First AFD was closed as keep after only two WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes, second was closed (way too early IMO) as no consensus. Sourcing...

sources? Or WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I am clearly providing reasons, and so my argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE My reason is...

subject. WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Comment - WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument in AFDs, particularly for articles that don't...

sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Andre🚐 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE? You need to provide at least some evidence. — kashmīrī TALK 09:21, 31...

relied on arguments that would not fly today, consisting of a lot of WP:ITSNOTABLE votes, as well as presenting sources that would not actually be valid...

(talk) 08:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Please do better than asserting WP:ITSNOTABLE Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 5 August 2023...

arguments. There's simply no good reason this article should be deleted. WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We cannot have editors running around slapping AfD notices...

mentions in passing. You fail to provide good argument (sources) outside WP:ITSNOTABLE; so if anyone needs a policy refresher, it's you. If you want to prove...

notable or not. It is!.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

but notable. yes it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. your argument fails to address how the article meets WP:N or WP:BIO....

you have provided no argument to establish how WP:N is met. Merely WP:ITSNOTABLE. "Big players"?? This article is about their relationship which is limited...

not as a group. Previous AFD kept entirely on weak arguments such as WP:ITSNOTABLE. There is nothing to say about the two together, since 99% of the content...

(another FL), for example. Statυs (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC) So WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? As a keep !voter you are required to provide and...

siblings and is hence notable.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE according to what policy or guideline? Because nowhere does it say "oldest...

The topic is notable. --Dede2008 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (tal k) 01:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)...

now, and a good 75% of the votes aren't valid, mainly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE without a reason and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with comments like if it's kept, wikipedia...

Previously kept in 2007 although the arguments were all WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:ITSNOTABLE. If no improvements have been made in 12 years, then it's clear that this...

(talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Keep Just to reiterate so I'm...

claiming it's notable without explaining why is an argument to avoid. WP:ITSNOTABLE Msnicki (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC) First of all, I had this book...

comment needed. Gage (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE for mroe information on why this is unsuitable for deletion discussions...

with notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. you haven't demonstrated how it meets notability. LibStar (talk) 23:45...

seems notable. --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Seeming notable is not the same as being notable...

Comment to the closing admin. Most keep votes here are just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE without providing any rationale, and the sources found are very weak (one...

Keep Seems notable enough.--Jetam2 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - 2 of the 3 keep !votes...

criterion or established consensus, otherwise it's a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Weak keep. It has reasonably...

votes (termed "oppose" here) are not policy-based: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ITSNOTABLE are not good arguments. The "delete" !votes, however, have valid policy-based...

assertation of notability. Last AFD was kept due to a crapflood of WP:ITSNOTABLEs, without any policy-based discussion of any sort. Ten Pound Hammer, his...

name-drops. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" due to socking and WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:34, 12 May...

AFD closed (prematurely, IMO) as "Speedy keep" due to a myriad of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:SOURCESEXIST type comments, but as far as I can tell, no reliable...

about them, but that doesn't mean they're encyclopedic - and bare WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments. At the moment, we have an article on Gerald Walpin - this article...

worth keeping in my opinion. Jccort (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE SnottyWong confabulate 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I think it is reasonable...

notable enough for an article. Dough4872 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Delete lacks indepth coverage...

been deleted long ago. Right now your argument amounts to WP:VALINFO, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:MUSTBESOURCES: you claim that sources exist, and yet you did not...

quite obtuse. For the record, your comments here are an example of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Not a useful contribution at all. Kuguar03 (talk)...

Prods contested on all four by Matt91486 (talk · contribs) who argued WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)...

in Spain. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Delete - WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument we recommend to avoid because it is weak. Nothing suggests...

aside, nothing has changed, and said claim is, well... WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:23, 10 October...

WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC) For instance, let...

searched for indepth coverage to establish notability? Rather than saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC) You know very well that...

notable enough Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please advise which notability criterion this meets. LibStar (talk) 23:48...

(talk) 13:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Assertions of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. are not a very good argument. The WP:SPA above copy-pasted the same...

itself, a reason to delete it. CRwikiCA talk 22:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)...

based on any tangible evidence and falls under WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:ITSNOTABLE argument fallacies which are discredited at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 16:58,...

Where is the WP:PERSISTENCE? Where is the case for notability beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE? Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 20...

content area either. The keep arguments by Bearian and Necrothesp are WP:ITSNOTABLE nonsense votes because WP:NSOLDIER was deprecated at an RFC.4meter4 (talk)...

articles would get listed. Lugnuts (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons. this topic clearly fails WP:GNG...

(talk) 05:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Comment - I see a junkload of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAVOTE comments in this deletion discussion. It would help if...

16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Closing admin; discard the above entry per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC) well known, many nominations...

these aren't very persuasive, either. Many could be classified as WP:ITSNOTABLE, where there is no explanation as to why the subject is notable, but rather...

argument of the sources found by Uncle G far outweigh the very weak WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments to delete this. --Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)...

notable franchise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument on the list of bad AfD arguments. Try again. --Piotr Konieczny...

attraction. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSNOTABLE. We don't go by "importance" for this sort of subject, we go by "notability"...

Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC) See also WP:AGF, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC) RANDY? Really...

(in order): "Wikia is so crap we should do their work for them", "WP:ITSNOTABLE", and "WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT". Reyk YO! 16:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Delete...

remind the closer that WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, and that votes WP:KEEPPER and WP:ITSNOTABLE are not particularly helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|...

state of current sourcing or just presuming WP:SOURCESEXIST because WP:ITSNOTABLE? All but one source are pretty blatantly WP:TRIVIAL mentions.ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)...

giving any explanation why is not helpful: see the last paragraph of WP:ITSNOTABLE. "I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color...

a speedy keep criterion (nor a particularly valid regular one, per WP:ITSNOTABLE). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)...

October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:03, 10 October...

source which turned out to be a press release combined with a dash of WP:ITSNOTABLE. No better sourcing found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw...

Pretty notable character... ~ HAL333 04:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC) HAL333, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here...

Last AFD was in 2007 and kept mostly through invalid arguments like WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)...

platitudes and unsupproted claims). 03:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. You need to actually provide a reason why it's notable. FuriouslySerene...

coverage in the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSINTHENEWS. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:10, 7 December 2017...

of fact and therefore not accepted in deletion discussions, please WP:ITSNOTABLE. And while you are correct the persona of the author has no direct brearing...

doubious notability. (Previous AFD from 2018 was sadly almost all WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:KEEPER). This one doesn't have any lasting reception, but it has a...

these pronunciations are "counterintuitive". Previous AFDs kept per WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT, and other valid arguments.Sources were pointed out, but their...

requires verifiable evidence. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. We don't relax notability rules for non profit...

exist that describe it. I image that this AFD will be flooded with WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes, but before you !vote keep; think "Are there actually sources referring...

assert that this subject is notable, or are you just making a crap WP:ITSNOTABLE argument along with some gratuitous personal abuse? ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢...

secondary source that mentions this. Prove me wrong; don't just say WP:ITSNOTABLE. IF YOU KNOW THERE ARE SOURCES, ADD THEM. (Note: I removed an example...

(UTC) Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please be bothered to make an argument. This is not a vote. --Piotr Konieczny...

needs to be expanded. 71.183.12.120 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Major...

with the notable .--Wasami007 (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reson for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)...

whatsoever. First AFD in 2007 was closed as keep due to a deluge of WP:ITSNOTABLEs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)...

(talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC) @AusLondonder: WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:ITSNOTABLE (not a valid argument). You have to explain how it does that. I say it...

basic BEFORE.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC) This is WP:ITSNOTABLE without actual proof of such, maybe try adding the sources to the article...

point to those references here. All I see so far are arguments that WP:ITSNOTABLE because WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|...

with keep but didn't provide any reasonable arguments, mostly using WP:ITSNOTABLE. (The process took place in 2006, so the notability guideline may have...

spirit since 2003! 15:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC) An interesting mix of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ALLORNOTHING and "Other shit exists" in other words? ╟─TreasuryTag►person...

works and games. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid arguments for retention of non-secondary...

admin: I believe my !vote is the first such one that doesn't fall under WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:ILIKEIT. SnottyWong prattle 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Delete:...

puzzling that Michig, an admin who I respect a lot, used a combination of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES all in one (before WP:COMMONSENSE...

00:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC) See my response below to FeydHuxtable's WP:ITSNOTABLE vote for why Saudin's New York Times entry establishes that he fails WP:ENT...

the fact it's an extremely notable & famous event - I try to avoid "WP:ITSNOTABLE"-type !votes but Ignoring the rules for once. –Davey2010Talk 18:40, 12...

December 2023 (UTC) @K6bee9: To be fair, a !vote that just states WP:ITSNOTABLE is also frivolous. It would be helpful if you could explain why the subject...

notability guideline. The first AFD was in 2011, and kept entirely due to WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:SOURCESEXIST. These invalid arguments also permeated the second...

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. please provide actual evidence of sources instead of WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Well for one thing, searching...

is notable enough.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC) @ User:Juristicweb...

Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.181 (talk • contribs) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)...

continuation of the precedent. The last AFD had a mixed bag of !Votes: an WP:ITSNOTABLE, a WP:JNN, a !vote that didn't actually address the notability issue at...

Defunct but notable. warpozio (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is in and by itself not an argument for keep. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:59,...

(UTC) which criteria of WP:AUTHOR does he meet? You are simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. As an admin I expect more.LibStar (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)...

09:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Surely you can do better than an assertion (WP:ITSNOTABLE)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 7 August 2022...

meet notability guidelines. Warden (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Under WP:GNG subjects must...

have its own page. Pavlen (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE --86.152.111.209 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Merge to either Pepsi...

adequately sourced. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)...

order to not have me reply with a link to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and/or WP:ITSNOTABLE and/or WP:ILIKEIT. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 17:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)...

as a casket. I realize my arguments are really just a variation of WP:ITSNOTABLE, however there's little I can do at the moment to provide concrete sources...

Mussav (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Please read WP:EFFORT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. MuZemike (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Keep seems a good basis...

August 2008 (UTC) Powers is right. What you said is nothing but an WP:ITSNOTABLE claim. You need verifiable, third-party sources to establish the article's...

notability guideline needed here. –SJ+ 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE LibStar (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC) COMMENT Was searching for this...

kept. -Brendan Kehoe Brendankehoe (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Why is it notable? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:47, 7 February 2013...

before, the first was kept entirely due to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PRETTY, WP:ITSNOTABLE and whatever the hell "Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical...

"incident" if you like. Ignatzmice•talk 23:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Moreover, no official confirmation for these velocities.--Jetstreamer Talk...

production?) — to satisfy WP General Notability Guidelines. —Carrite WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument. Show me it's notable, don't tell me. Can't you people...

each year of Burning Man (with 70k attendees), so I don't buy the WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. Best handled as a blgo post and/or having the program on archive...

14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC) @Rillington So it's notable because WP:ITSNOTABLE? Recursion (computer science) is fun but not a very good argument in deletion...

nobody found such references so far. And without it, your post is just WP:ITSNOTABLE invalid-type of a vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply...

here in wikipedia.Susanbryce (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC) see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) The organization is often featured...

the wikipedia. I say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Delete...

images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) First AFD was kept due to WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing else. Second nomination had the article's creator...

why? You haven't provided an argument to back up your assertion of WP:ITSNOTABLE. And yes, articles beyond hope can be nuked from orbit (Wikipedia:Blow...

The nomination may be flawed, but so are the keep rationales above (WP:ITSNOTABLE). This is a pretty bad failure of WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NLIST, and WP:GNG. Despite...

gives a policy-based rationale, instead resorting to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Unless sufficient in-depth reliable sources van be unearthed, this most...

January 2025 (UTC) Delete previous AfD keep votes and above argue WP:ITSNOTABLE. I'm not seeing sources to establish GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:42, 8 January...

forum. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC) WP:PERX, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT. None of these are valid arguments. It's "referenced" to a...

(UTC) Then please do, as otherwise your comment is simply arguing that WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate...

provided these sources in your original vote argument. instead of saying WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence.LibStar (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC) [8] doesn't...

it's notable without pointing to sources that say this is just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE - not a strong argument. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply...

11:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Please stop with your personal attacks. WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid keep argument, and ad hominens are even less. --Piotr Konieczny...

notability of interchanges. Many of the keep voters are simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE with zero evidence of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 13 January...

WP:ILIKEIT. JOEBRO64 23:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Nope, he is saying WP:ITSNOTABLE - about as bad of an argument, but we should be precise :) --Piotr Konieczny...

brought forth, nor was notability ever proven; most arguments were just WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:16, 9...

ZettaComposer (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Delete. Simply shouting WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid rationale for keeping. Even guidelines like WP:NEXIST require...

hopefully will be addressed. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid argument. But I'd be curious to hear why you think it's...

consensus as some sort of pseudo notability guideline, it really is WP:ITSNOTABLE. Consensus does change but you need to argue your case for changing notability...

both arguments that are exactly what we don't want to have on AfDs, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Now, for the modern sources above: Pocket Gamer's...

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSIMPORTANT nor WP:ITSNOTABLE are a valid argument, neither are any straw men references. --Piotr Konieczny...

policy-based reasons for this article to be kept, or is this a case of WP:ITSNOTABLE? SplashScreen (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Delete. I have been skeptical...

the strength of arguments - a lot of them are sadly WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:LOCALFAME (that one specifically discusses systemic bias fallacy in...

covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. you've posted this identical comment on several...

notability by borderline.Anishwiki12 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Neither...

addressed. Shahid • Talk2me 11:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE. Beyond that, what is your evidence for such a claim. As is, you're just...

to be trivial mentions. Any other arguments for keeping were only WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. Further searching on Google News only found one-sentence...

and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. and simply stating WP:ITSNOTABLE is also not valid. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Keep - notable...

aren't enough sources demonstrated yet. Right now you are just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Per WP:NTV: "A [...] television...

within the range of what is routine. I find the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments put forward in favour of keeping this article to be deeply unconvincing...

of publications does not make an award notable. Nor does your mere WP:ITSNOTABLE assertion make a direct-to-video production notable. And yes, Wikipedia...

JSTOR · TWL) Fails WP:NTV, zero sourcing found. Deprodded because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)...

ships are notable just because they are, well, Star Trek Enterprise. WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument at all, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul...

--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Your argument is invalid - WP:ITSNOTABLE - this is not a vote. I explained that his position is not a criteria...

sourced.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC) @XavierGreen: WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)...

to be notable to me. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)...

(talk) 02:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC) That's a statement, not an argument. WP:ITSNOTABLE describes pretty well why you need to explain yourself more if you wish...

policy-compliant content. TompaDompa (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Assertion of WP:ITSNOTABLE is not the best argument. Perhaps you could elaborate? Piotr Konieczny...

Can you word your argument in policy? Because you are just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. As for links to other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is again not a valid...

time-wasting. Blatant keep. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a proper argument. The article has no proper sources to satisfy...

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC) So that's one WP:ITSNOTABLE to discard. Who's up next? Tarc (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Please...

in a hospital. There is no inherent notability in hospitals. Again WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...

delete. Ronk01 talk 05:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC) That amounts to a WP:ITSNOTABLE vote, which will likely be discarded in the final analysis. Do you have...

sources and trivial passing mentions, and then all just started echoing WP:ITSNOTABLE over one another, ignoring requests to actually outline which sources...

nothing else to say, and all the "keep"s so far are either WP:LOSE or WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)...

be seen. Discard both "keeps" above, as they are little more than WP:ITSNOTABLE with zero supporting proof or support. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2010...

article information. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. You have 6 days to find sources. LibStar...

Short. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments again, neither of which address the actual...

fact-checking (not written by any staff etc.) Your argument fails per WP:ITSNOTABLE and hugely contradicts Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Jovanmilic97...

coverage, that is standard practice in AfDs. otherwise it's like saying WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC) For people who...

of Congress, which is fallacious on its face. The others were two WP:ITSNOTABLEs and a WP:PRETTY from an editor with a long-standing vendetta against...

Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC) And consistently recycling WP:ITSNOTABLE never works. Never has done. Hopefully never will do. You need to develop...

A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC) See WP:ITSNOTABLE; WP:ILIKEIT. - Biruitorul Talk 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE...

a very textbook example WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS WP:ITSNOTABLE, as the closer will decide your accusation of us being Nazis is accurate...

it would help if you could explain why, and not just state it, per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Fram (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Botched the ping, so once again:...

article certainly doesn't show that. You can't just come in and say WP:ITSNOTABLE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC) Delete In response to many...

there are some really bad votes here (WP:NOTAVOTE, also WP:KEEPPER and WP:ITSNOTABLE) I wan to commend User:Sariel Xilo for adding a large reception section...

article as well as a notable event. WölffReik 19:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Keep...

eBay and 'I remember this' forum posts, and otherwise cherry-picked WP:ITSNOTABLE reaches. I already removed a list of stations that aired the films per...

notable; can sources be found and provided that prove notability beyond "WP:ITSNOTABLE because..."? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)...

analogous in the Ontario context.) I know: this is probably just an WP:ITSNOTABLE claim, and the closer will likely disregard it. But there it is. AleatoryPonderings...

would like to see this saved somehow, but I have to point out that WP:ITSNOTABLE with no argument (WP:NOTAVOTE) is not an argument, but a baseless assertion...

Simply saying "Appears notable" without saying why is no help. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC) My apologies. I found...

last AFD. It's notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC) So WP:ITSNOTABLE? Good grief, they should have banned you from Afd altogether. Till 23:30...

10:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC) how is this strong keep? This is just a WP:ITSNOTABLE argument with not one source or notability guideline cited. Over 100 bilateral...

essay-ish, unreferenced mess and should be a disambig. Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an appopriate vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply...

Kosovars as refugees. And you're again using another argument to avoid WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Delete - that Iceland recognises...

weak, policy-wise. "Obviously passes GNG" or "notability is clear" (WP:ITSNOTABLE) are arguments that closing admins routinely ignore. Please add new comments...

June 2017 (UTC). WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. And neither is WP:ITSNOTABLE. Sources, please, not assertions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|...

(UTC) Do you have a stronger and more specific argument for this than WP:ITSNOTABLE? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC) I don't think that one...

source these articles at all and just argue keep because WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Even fewer have argued why these and other lists like them meet WP:SALAT...

for its name in Malay. therefore fails WP:GNG. your arguments are WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 11 September...

is terrible.★Trekker (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC) *Treker, WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a great argument. You need to tell us "why" he is notable. Piotr...

so far none of the keep !votes have demonstrated as such, besides WP:ITSNOTABLE. Simply winning awards is again not enough to indicate standalone notability...

"arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", including WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:ITSNOTABLE (assertion != demonstration), and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The argument to...

is notable DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC) WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Yeah, real solid arguments there. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a...

sorry, you don't get off so easily: you are essentially saying it is WP:ITSNOTABLE, because random links. I spend 30 minutes reviewing them and I posted...

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Weak to medium...

May 2011 (UTC) it does not meet WP:GNG so therefore is not notable. WP:ITSNOTABLE does not count. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC) I don't care what...

existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC) This seems like WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF to me. Even if it does meet GNG, there's...

holds office. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. None of the positions held confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk)...

notable enough. BlackShadowG (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Keep - article in its...

article Unilateral deletion of a "notability" tag, combined with a classic ITSNOTABLE argument Unilateral instructions with no clear basis in Wikipedia policy...

which policy/guideline? With respect, your argument still reads like WP:ITSNOTABLE. Are your above linked listings of candidates (in websites which host...

of the Duke of Kent. WiltedXXVI (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Why is it notable? Pilaz (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Keep as...

good to stay. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC) See WP:ITSNOTABLE. If you are referring to the above mentioned sources, the Chao themselves...

research. Wm335td (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE... -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 18 October...

argument. Can we have one more try at discussing this without the WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Orford. Please...

Keep votes above (not counting the ones that are nothing more than WP:ITSNOTABLE statements that should be discounted) just state that the article needs...

sake, let's give it a chance! Cassiantotalk 08:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, this isn't a valid article to make in a deletion disucssion. Tarc (talk)...

decision, but many, if not all, of the keep arguments are based on WP:ITSNOTABLE and lack solid policy based support. Not saying they are wrong, haven't...

not necessarily notable on Wikipedia). See also WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 18 August...

between the two countries.--RioHondo (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. you must explain how it's notable. LibStar...

actual third party sources to establish notability. Your argument says WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...

party sources... have you found any? Your arguments for keep are just WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL. This fails WP:GNG by a long mark. LibStar (talk) 11:14...

existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC) This seems like WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF to me. Even if it does meet GNG, there's...

--Darwinek (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Comment Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes are routinely ignored by closing admins. --Randykitty (talk) 07:40...

contribs 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Your argument mainly appears to be WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OSE. Can you find reliable sources which discuss this position...

a number of the Keep comments are verging on (or simply just are) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Since the last re-listing I can't see any smoking gun for sourcing, so...

offender.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Once again, WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 26 January...

WP:GNG, or add them to the article(s)? Otherwise, your !vote is just WP:ITSNOTABLE. If Pat Lawlor is notable, perhaps some of these can be merged to his...

still only has primary sources. Xxanthippe !vote can be considered WP:ITSNOTABLE in the absence of evidence of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 04:12,...

WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:TOOSOON. Keep !votes above seem to boil down to WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Merge and...

deletion discussions you have simply moved from WP:MUSTBESOURCES to WP:ITSNOTABLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) No, it wasn't von Neumann...

although the unsigned argument of DanielDiebler seems a bit weak to me (WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:GOOGLE, WP:IKNOWIT), as Sabre has highlighted there are enough independent...

country's diplomatic relations. Ike Lek (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please indicate how this meets a notability guideline. LibStar (talk)...

what you think it means. As said before, it is not sufficient to say WP:ITSNOTABLE, you have to show how it is notable by Wikipedia's standards. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK...

covered in acceptable way. --ssr (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument to avoid. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Keep...

surprised that your keep rationale would be a glorious combination of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:GHITS, and a turkish website with a 2-paragraph description of the...

(UTC) @Kierzek Would you mind elaborating to move your comment beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE? TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 29 March...

means what you think it means. No, a bunch of canvassed fanboys shrieking ITSNOTABLE!!!! doesn't make it so. Breathing for a long time is not notable, as has...

comment added by 98.191.110.119 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:INHERITED. As for the duck test, if you have issues with CU, raise...

notable and meets GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC) see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC) see WP:VAGUEWAVE. GregJackP Boomer...

notability of ambassadors. This has not changed. You're just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence or outcomes from 50+ AfDs. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 1 December...

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Actually they are the only considerations that Wikipedia requires. Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE is...