14 August 2026 (UTC) Delete The arguments for keeping are simply WP:ITSUSEFUL. I Am Weightless, I Am Rust (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2026 (UTC) Keep The...

sources then it won't meet these guidelines. Please also have a read of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. We need more than its existence to justify inclusion....

seems more viable I admit. Mikeyconcon (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)...

an article. All of the keeps in the last AfD were some variant of WP:ITSUSEFUL --T-rex 14:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Delete as the nominator on the original...

12:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for providing the WP:ITSUSEFUL link. Note, however, that WP:ITSUSEFUL includes the following: "If reasons are given, "usefulness"...

The result was keep. This appears to be one of the rare cases where "ITSUSEFUL" can be a valid argument. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)...

May 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Quickdraw on the WP:ITSUSEFUL? My primary point...

result was delete. All arguments in favor of keep were variations of WP:ITSUSEFUL. – sgeureka t•c 08:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC) [Hide this box] New to Articles...

nobody except article creator commented, and his main argument was WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, neither of which are valid in an AfD discussion...

September 2007 (UTC) WP:N establishes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't good reasons to keep an article. If you...

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG and failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:V. Even WP:ITSUSEFUL makes no sense here because no, it is not useful; the usefulness of this...

purpose; leave it alone. --Seduisant (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments. You lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer...

about this - it's a website that converts some file types. Essentially WP:ITSUSEFUL perennial stub. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20...

for educational purpose Delibolt (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not the best argument, I am afraid. Educational purpose is better covered...

barney (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Delete as total overlap. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument. I see nothing "common sense" about an unreferenced...

classics like Superman?   –radiojon (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. And think about it — if there are no sources...

Bus services are not inherently notable and this one fails WP:GNG. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article. Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY....

to no evidence of third-party coverage that would meet guidelines. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid rationale for keeping. DarkAudit (talk) 22:46, 12 April...

whatsoever for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 14 February 2012...

Definitely. As it fails WP:LINKFARM, just like the nom says. I see a WP:ITSUSEFUL vote by LittleBen, and a wall of text by the author of the article, plus...

further edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was delete. WP:ITSUSEFUL is a weak argument if put against the WP:SYNTH concerns. Sandstein 08:37...

Still I can't find any source to make some more useful input then WP:ITSUSEFUL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Relisted to...

essentially falls under the argument of WP:ITSPOPULAR mixed in with WP:ITSUSEFUL. It's still expected that a book will gain some sort of coverage in reliable...

to do with redirecting the list? TCN7JM 12:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping a list of non-notable items. They are...

editor here who makes a fair argument for keeping, everything else is WP:ITSUSEFUL. I also can't see why someone would say "delete or rename". Ron Ritzman...

result was delete. Policy basis is CFORK and RS. Keep arguments based on ITSUSEFUL and the order of release don't overcome policy Spartaz Humbug! 06:41,...

--Ryan.germany (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC) WP:IKNOWIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2011...

result was delete. The keep-!votes can be summarized as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL but none demonstrated notability per guidelines actually exists. SoWhy...

"Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". Keeps mostly follow some variant of WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:SUNKCOST. Additionally, I did not find the lack of an RfC on the...

was closed as kept based on arguments "there are references" and "WP:ITSUSEFUL". We have progressed beyond such Yellow Pages arguments since. Piotr Konieczny...

consensus with leave to speedy renominate. 2 "keep" !votes with one a WP:ITSUSEFUL might be enough for a Pokemon but not IMHO for a BLP. (non-admin closure)...

05:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Delete a number of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NOHARM arguments presented here which should be avoided. as nominator...

(UTC) Argument not to use in Afds: WP:ITSUSEFUL. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Ironically, WP:ITSUSEFUL includes the text, "An argument based...

was founded...etc. --Visik (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC) see WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...

20:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Bad faith revision-hoarding. GwydionM's ITSUSEFUL argument was rejected at AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk)...

it is is useful to see Wikipedia entries on a map. But yes, I know wP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Can anyone find anything more to add to this...

I can totally see how such a list would be useful to somebody, but WP:ITSUSEFUL is not what Wikipedia is about. Again, I hope we can find a wikia somewhere...

- I took the liberty of moving the above !vote, but that's a plain WP:ITSUSEFUL--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Rename and cleanup...

since I've always meant to find and collect all of the songs, but WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep in any way, shape, or form. Anything that can be...

sourcing. JonathanDP81 (talk | contribs) 15:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid keep rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 22 May 2016...

promotional article. Mehediabedin (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL Isn’t a good reason to keep something. Like I said, Wikipedia is WP:NOT...

does not exist. Jergling (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC) This is the ITSUSEFUL fallacy. All of the prose in the Honda article comes from unreliable,...

this since; AfD from that time had arguments based on WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:GOOGLEHITS). Time to find sources or delete it, I think. Piotr Konieczny...

17 November 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL explains that such an argument...

06:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Delete: Even though I really want to say WP:ITSUSEFUL as a public health service. Clearly no name recognition and only passing...

happens. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC) :*It is an essay but WP:ITSUSEFUL. Most if not all of those results are not about this product. 16x9 (talk)...

~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC) I do think this article is WP:ITSUSEFUL (per Elemimele) too but can you direct me to a policy that states lists...

even the governing body does not deem that notable, this is a case of WP:ITSUSEFUL and is on the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Mtking...

The result was delete. Majority of the keep arguments are variations on ITSUSEFUL. The argument that there is a culturally significant intersection has...

the page history. I would also note that "I'm an inclusionist" and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid arguments.Beeblebrox (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)...

WP:NOTABILITY not WP:ITSUSEFUL. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Maybe go back and re-read WP:ITSUSEFUL, because it...

falk talk 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Comment So are you saying WP:ITSUSEFUL? And WP:INHERITED (from the Chinese tea ceremony)? Logical Cowboy (talk)...

delete. The arguments for keeping this article all revolve around WP:ITSUSEFUL, which as we all know is not a valid rationale. On the other hand no one...

in the first keep !vote. The fourth keep vote is little more than WP:ITSUSEFUL All in all, the delete comments are on point, and the keep ones are not...

(user:thumperward) (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Indeed; WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Merge per Thincat...

reason to nominate this. Prhartcom (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. The good reason to keep it is the lack of...

be non-encyclopedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply...

Bioinformatics#Universities. It certainly doesn't merit its own article. 45sixtyone, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good Afd argument. (Also smack the person who named the article...

hesitant about discarding an article on a marque, but that is just an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. There is no article on Sheridan Marine, who have provided servicing...

useful to me. -- 128.138.149.172 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT --Cybercobra (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Delete: I...

non-policy-based previously, i.e. WP:ITSUSEFUL, and appears to be the same now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is one of many non-policy essays...

ideal. scope_creep (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Is this not a WP:ITSUSEFUL based argument, the issue is that it does not appear to be notable. Codf1977...

as mentioned; arguments such as 'it is helpful' should be avoided (WP:ITSUSEFUL) Spiderone 11:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Delete - non-notable footballer....

or how a bunch of comic book demons are connected?) or WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSUSEFUL. Dronebogus (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Keep per the arguments of...

for that course of action that don't boil down to WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL. If the tour takes place as planned and sufficient independent coverage...

Einottaja (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Delete per nom. Note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 16...

None of the arguments provided in the previous discussion go beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Kinu t/c 16:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

just get stubbed again. Edrowland (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)...

article, an at least seventeen who currently redirect to the same list. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not really the best arguments to keep something...

that cover it specifically. These sources do not seem to exist, and WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a compelling argument for keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20...

lack of familiarity with the AfD - they were mostly assertioons of WP:ITSUSEFUL, and AFD are not a vote. The only argument of some validity was that the...

jars tc 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Maybe a better page to use here is WP:ITSUSEFUL. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC) "It is useful" is an argument...

of these is a WP:RS reference; nor are the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments above sustainable here. Taking a fresh look at this, I can find...

created by an IP WP:SPA. The 2005 AfD seems to have fallen into a WP:ITSUSEFUL discussion. Although there are passing mentions that this cut-down version...

armadillo and use this argument to defend it... see also WP:ITSHARMLESS, WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 28 November...

useful. Sugarpuff888 (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC) WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Clearly...

prospects for trade. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL for businesses it not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 5 January...

(talk) 17:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Note: Not a valid argument, cf. WP:ITSUSEFUL. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Delete: Obviously not...

popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep. shoy 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Note: This...

the arguments in the previous AfD convincing (they seemed to tend to WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:WORTHYCAUSE) and my searches are not turning up anything to meet...

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, and WP:ITSUSEFUL is a lousy argument to make. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2020...

June 2013 (UTC) Delete as WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. I don't care that WP:ITSUSEFUL. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

interest them to be in one place. KLR (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument to make. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 6 February...

most of the Keep arguments conflicted with WP:NOTDICT or asserted WP:ITSUSEFUL. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Delete - Wikipedia is...

01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC) @E.M.Gregory: So WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:ITSUSEFUL? Amisom (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

think the article does good. MMetro (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)...

Recycling Centers. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL. --neon white talk 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Delete Trivial local coverage...

Keep, it's useful. --82.27.132.19 (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL --Cybercobra (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC) There are many C function...

comment added by Atlantyca (talk • contribs) 13:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC) clear delete...

appear in this article. The arguments to keep were not convincing (WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF). I would be willing to restore the article for the purpose...

consensus. This AfD is obnviously tainted (again) and there are quite a few "itsuseful" Keep votes, but there are good-faith ones too and judging from the last...

useful article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL for why you need more than that. - Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 15 April 2009...

might argue that this should be kept on the basis of being useful (WP:ITSUSEFUL - an argument to avoid), it does count as WP:NOTDIR and there is no need...

to someone eventually. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) So wp:ITSUSEFUL because? Just saying it might be useful in the future isn't a constructive...

05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Ah, so you're saying it's notable because WP:ITSUSEFUL. You lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21...

and does no harm. — JFG talk 01:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:HARMLESS Spiderone 09:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC) The above discussion...

(talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (copied from talk page) WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Keep. I've...

--Montecarol 14:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC) So your argument is a mix of WP:ITSUSEFUL, and "putting it on Wikipedia will make it notable" (which reeks of circular...

for their work. --Artene50 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Delete. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep, nor is the fact it's been here a WP:LONGTIME...

July 2010 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSUSEFUL. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL notes: "There are some pages within Wikipedia...

Nor have you addressed how it meets any notability guideline. See WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Weak keep The Lake Macquarie...

done so in that section, with a minor note about the company itself. WP:ITSUSEFUL certainly isn't useful if we can duplicate the info easier in other articles...

Pangram has one reference.Red Hurley (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSFUNNY, WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 17...

February 2020 (UTC) where are the sources from your online search? WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...

Wikipedia itself is a reliable source? If not, it looks an awful lot like WP:ITSUSEFUL. Neither would be valid keep rationales. Weak delete - seems to have a...

page for visibility we don't create articles because WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL, they must meet WP:N, this does not. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2009...

rationales. Additionally, most keep votes seem rooted in WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The above discussion...

consensus‎. Some of the Keep arguments amount to little more than WP:ITSUSEFUL. Yet after three weeks, I see no consensus to delete, and no likelihood...

Please do not make statements like "would be an act of vandalism". Also WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:HARDWORK. In addition, Moving articles while they are at AfD is discouraged...

reliable, independent sources can be found. So far the arguments are WP:ITSUSEFUL. If no suitable sources exist, deletion is required. Chiswick Chap (talk)...

(talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Easier to find? Sounds like a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. We don't duplicate information out of a list just because its...

noticed they were in error.) Dmn € Դմն 18:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL; and yes, while a handful of jurors are notable, the great majority of...

to water, oil or putty. Edison (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL.Additionally, allmost all sources, (I have read), do only provide a table...

based on NLIST and NOT while the keeps were mostly based on some form of ITSUSEFUL. Based on that, I have to give more weight to the delete side. Guerillero...

hundreds or thousands of branches should have an article here but WP:ITSUSEFUL is not sufficient. The news pieces you find are a good start, but for...

popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep. shoy 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Keep. There...

answer to Kvng's question. Rentier (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw...

better target would be Hotels in Toronto, not that I support the idea. WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)...

a sign of enduring coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Note: This...

comment added by 166.137.210.46 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC) delete Amazingly...

Vartanza (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC) above comment is not valid per WP:ITSUSEFUL and makes no attempt to say how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk)...

demonstrated notability.” Nihonjinatny (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid Afd argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024...

Jutrasj (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC) @Jutrasj: See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's why. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|...

off using Wikipedia policy based arguments than ones WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Delete. I'm sorry...

has not been shown to be borderline, notibility is not here. Plus WP:ITSUSEFUL. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Comment Sending something...

in the main article, and would not make the main article too long. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for an article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:23, 29...

reader find Wikipedia articles". You and WhisperToMe are arguing that WP:ITSUSEFUL. On the other hand, there are two existing and two redlinked school districts...

whether or not the page would be useful or if someone didn't like it (WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT), but whether or not the section has received enough focus...

and WP:TRIVIA delete arguments were strong, and the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL keep responses were weak. On the other hand, the argument that the topic...

of information. Last AFDed in 2005, kept solely on the strength of WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. --Divebomb is not British 14:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Keep...

MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC) So basically WP:ITSUSEFUL is your argument. What about the fact that this lists a metric buttload...

nothing to do with him. On the other hand, I don't mean to commit WP:ITSUSEFUL, but the IP editor above seems to suggest that this person might be notable...

Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC) @Arrivisto:: See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:PRETTY. Not at all valid excuses. I could make a useful, well-written...

not justify the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a useful argument the article doesn't have reliable third person...

people benefiting from something is not a criteria for inclusion per WP:ITSUSEFUL, nor is the number of other articles on the same topic, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...

Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC) @Daniel kenneth: See WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -...

concept itself at comic book death. Other keep arguments were of the WP:ITSUSEFUL type, or just contained flat-out personal attacks. With that said, if...

EMScatt (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Please note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument, and that WP:NOTDICT says Wikipedia is not for...

preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (UTC). WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a very good Keep argument. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:20, 11 August...

(UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC) That's a facile and dismissive response. ITSUSEFUL ≠ "usefulness...

free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) PROD removed by IP on WP:ITSUSEFUL grounds. PROD rationaile, still relevant, is that this is a incomplete...

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, 1 February 2012...

it on the Internet? I'd say yes, even thought that's a borderline WP:ITSUSEFUL argument; but of course, your mileage may vary. - The Bushranger One ping...

both closed as keep, but both were kept only due to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL without any policy-based arguments either time. Ten Pound Hammer, his...

several arguments that we should avoid during deletion discussions; see WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NEWARTICLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 19:34, 29 December 2016...

never notable. It wasn't even a resident ambassador. WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not reasons for keeping and you've supplied zero evidence to prove...

not aware of any issue with including partial matches in the count. WP:ITSUSEFUL may be valid for DAB pages. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:46, 13 February...

--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Comment - I'm sort of in WP:ITSUSEFUL land on this one. I can certainly see utility here and really don't see...

in-depth. Voting weak as I find articles about publishers useful, but WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an accepted argument, and I have nothing else to thow for the keep...

standards without removing ~90+% of the current content anyway; and WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep articles that are in a state that's an embarassment...

this subject. "Passes the Pokemon test"?!?! Hmmm. Lots of OTHERSTUFF and ITSUSEFUL kinds of arguments... The real question is whether this is the subject...

or are all of you just going on your own whims? All I see above is WP:ITSUSEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 14 February 2012...

here at all, and the rest of your argument, along with n64ra, is just WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. If you could just yell that out and have that work every time...

"potentially useful information." Even if that wasn't a discredited WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, what information is that, exactly? Nha Trang 20:39, 6 October...

as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST...

as a list of winners.TheLongTone (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)...

one of the things it doesn't cover, regardless of WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)...

22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC) @Andrew Kanaber: Do read and consider WP:ITSUSEFUL and other sections on that page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|...

notable program. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Sounds like WP:ITSUSEFUL. Not a reason to ignore core article policies.--Otterathome (talk) 10:57...

problem with a lot of FOSS projects, too. Regardless, I won't argue WP:ITSUSEFUL or anything. I did find a published tutorial on a site I used to frequent...

the world has heard of it. So far, the evidence suggests "No." See WP:ITSUSEFUL for further clarification. Ravenswing 20:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Delete...

updated regularly. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not helpful: a detailed map of every street in a city, kept updated...

WP:POLITICIAN. The only information I can find is routine election coverage. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep it. --Kinu t/c 19:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Delete...

contribution to the field. JamesFountain (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC) → WP:ITSUSEFUL. --DAJF (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Fascinating to see someone pop...

12:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Historic significance according to whom? WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a recommended argument. If you have sources that it is used and...

legitimate purpose. (As I may have mentioned once or twice, I consider WP:ITSUSEFUL one of the most bone-headedly stupid essays on Wikipedia. The whole point...

article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Did you find any reliable WP:SECONDARY sources...

contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Rename to...

are mostly neutral about it's deletion - my spontaneous thought is WP:ITSUSEFUL but that's about it. Gaioa (T C L) 11:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Keep A valid...

much out there for the company. Also, we don't keep articles because WP:ITSUSEFUL or anything that derives from that. I do think that you are a representative...

a lack of reliable sources; while it's true that WP:ITSPOPULAR and WP:ITSUSEFUL are arguments to avoid, the fact that these are things people will come...

address this core problem, but rather makes arguments in the vein of WP:ITSUSEFUL, I find that there is a consensus to delete this list in this form. It...

with sparse references to manga (WP:PRIMARY). Sadly, this is just WP:ITSUSEFUL but not encyclopedic content (aka WP:FANCRUFT). --Piotr Konieczny aka...

lists today as a refrence 71.43.164.34 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Keep: This information is relevant...

thus leaving no reason for retention of this spinout. As a reminder, WP:ITSUSEFUL is generally not considered a valid argument for retention at AFD discussions...

Indian footballers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:52...

information to users Leodikap (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)...

(talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Devil's advocate moment: WP:ITSUSEFUL. But the coverage meets GNG anyway, so it's somewhat moot, SWinxy (talk)...

general for the purpose. VivekM (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)...

Yellow1996 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC) How is it important? WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 28 October...

touch upon policy at all, but instead are in breach of WP:INTERESTING, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, may "stand" but they don't carry much weight when...

printing copies of them. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Also, I want to note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not really a valid arguing point. We're not a directory for people...

December 2022 (UTC) @My very best wishes But we have to go beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL. I agree there is some potential here, but for now the page is WP:ORish...

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

Getting edited regularly (by editors adding the new episodes) and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not good reasons to keep this article. - JuneGloom Talk 11:57, 26...

only cite primary sources!" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "It's useful" - WP:ITSUSEFUL "Mentioned in Salon; The Comics Journal; Rotten; etc" - To establish notability...

17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Usefulness is not a good argument. See WP:ITSUSEFUL Pilotbob (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Comment We do not really have...

images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Deprodded with an WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL rationale on talk page by the page's author. I see no sources to verify...

your point about information about degree mills being useful, but see WP:ITSUSEFUL about that. Definitely worth an entry in List of unaccredited higher education...

March 2017 (UTC) Keep, or at least Projectify. I know this is all WP:ITSUSEFUL, but I regularly use the men's page, both to view all squads on one page...

the "keeps" above appear to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, also WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't cut it, this does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch does not bring up...

(WP:ITEXISTS) or because it could potentially be useful to someone (WP:ITSUSEFUL). For an article to be kept we must have reliable sources that show notability...

has important use ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 05:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid, i.e. not valid Geschichte (talk) 06:33, 21 June...

photographer list (albeit unreferenced), which (veering towards WP:CRYSTAL / WP:ITSUSEFUL) could become more relevant when the digital images go online. AllyD (talk)...

need to be deleted JayJayWhat did I do? 21:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)...

--Spartycat (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) @Spartycat: Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NOHARM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17...

26 January 2014 (UTC) @Preetikapoor0:, you may not know this, but WP:ITSUSEFUL is one of the positions that carries no weight in a deletion discussion...

in a merge, methinks. Carrite (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is explicitly listed as not a valid argument, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny...

be easy to write an article that went more in-depth. I hate make an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, but even out-of-date statistics with limited commentary is pretty...

topic. Comment. All of the Keep !votes appear to be a mishmash of WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:VALINFO, WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. These are all...

previous AfDs gave weak or no reasons for keep and consensus can change. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. there are 100s of thousands if not millions...

new editor without improvement, and with the only rationale being WP:ITSUSEFUL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion...

this list on Wikipedia; the arguments given are just WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. I understand why some might find the list interesting but I just don't...

refute them with that logic. TTN (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, and you can refer just as well or even better to https://lotr.fandom...

of this XfD. – The Grid (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Textbook WP:ITSUSEFUL argument Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:00, 11 March...

Lots of "keep votes" but they generally seem to suffer from a case of WP:ITSUSEFUL. More comments needed. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)...

terms of arguments, the "keep" side mostly makes arguments in the WP:ITSUSEFUL vein which is not a strong line of argument. Notably, nobody here cites...

Notability must be established. You can't argue for inclusion by saying WP:ITSUSEFUL. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC) This isn't a deletionist...

the series and usefulness of the list), please read WP:INHERITED and WP:ITSUSEFUL as these are irrelevant. Kariteh (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Delete...

can allude to usefulness for any article, that is nothing more than WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Aoidh (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC) The "Arguments to avoid"...

sexuality content. (Lajmmoore (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)) See WP:ITSUSEFUL. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Merge with Sexual identity...

subjects dont meet notability guidelines. It's got to be more than just WP:ITSUSEFUL. The other articles you mentioned on my talk page, 2 of them do have some...

WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Deprodded with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL rationales. While there are sources, I see no way this can be anything...

popularity, is the basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason to keep. shoy 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Obvious Keep...

those listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 January 2015...

well with future nominators. I had added it in, being fed up of the WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT votes I was getting from this selection of voters (they...

Wikipedia works. Science articles don't get a pass on WP:N just because WP:ITSUSEFUL. Articles on marginal topics like this clutter the internet (and AI training...

rationales provide no reason for this article to be kept other than WP:ITSUSEFUL, which is a textbook illegitimate reason for an article to be kept. Devonian...

Wikipedia Article. Thank you. Trueyre (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL WP:MERCY Brachy08 (Talk) 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Delete. No sources...

(talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Devil's advocate moment: WP:ITSUSEFUL. But the coverage meets GNG anyway, so it's somewhat moot, SWinxy (talk)...

is a critical article. Jehochman Talk 02:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)...

fails WP:GNG. You may address this argument and you may have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. IQinn (talk) 06:16, 7...

data. cross_impact (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL. Gm545 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Keep as WP:ILIKEIT too. Gm545...

15:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Yeah...that vote might fall under question per ITSUSEFUL. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please...

reminded to vote via policy- or source-based rationale rather than WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT or WP:CRYSTALBALL. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)...

(see [1]). In other words, just hosts for self-published content. And WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply...

opinion. It is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Well...

(talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment - WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument that is supposed to be avoided, FYI... Sergecross73 msg...

historical figure.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a very good argument. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply...

(talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) These aren't reasons to keep. See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:EVERYTHING. Also, where's the reliable sources treating this in...

NY-13021 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Your argument seems to fail WP:ITSUSEFUL. External links, like B Ref and the Cube, will have this info. Look there...

go down well. GreggBayesBrown (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)...

when I have more time. --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument to make here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 9 July...

January 2021 (UTC) How? Kolma8 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL - argument to avoid in AfD if possible Spiderone 19:22, 15 January 2021...

30 May 2022 (UTC) A list with only one item on it is "valid"? Also WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a "valid" argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw...

careers - used Twitter. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. And twitter use is WP:ROUTINE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:43,...

(talk) 19:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC) @Charles.bowyer WP:ITSINTERESTING, WP:ITSUSEFUL... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 12 July 2023...

or their representatives, there's no reason to list it. Saying that WP:ITSUSEFUL to the article or helps show a different side of the person isn't a very...

attach to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC) - see WP:ITSUSEFUL - Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Before you throw essays at people...

2022 (UTC)) Delete, blatant WP:NOTGUIDE violation and WP:GNG failure, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep this mess of original research. Devonian Wombat...

for their grad choices. Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011...

sourcing is poor and fails WP:GNG. we don't keep articles because WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC) can you show me even 5...

Finally, in response to the contribution from Feelingscarfy, above, WP:ITSUSEFUL discusses usefulness of information vs encyclopedic content and concludes...

article. The very brief mentions are not evidence of WP:SIGCOV and WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping independently of the parent article. Eggishorn...

SPAs who've proffered no arguments beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL, why is this still an open AfD? Ravenswing 11:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)...

such navigational articles be kept. I disagree with Postdif that ad hoc ITSUSEFUL/IAR arguments like this are either satisfactory or permanent, but that's...

no good reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Actually...

municipality. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Keep WP:ITSUSEFUL usually isn't a valid argument, but it is for disambiguation pages. Smartyllama...

(UTC) I suggest you read WP:ITSUSEFUL.Curb Chain (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I did. I even tried Wikipdia:ITSUSEFUL. ;) It doesn't alter my opinion...

inclusion guideline Gibraltar at major beauty pageants meets? Also WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST and WP:IWORKEDSOHARD are classic examples of arguments...

Previous AFD kept entirely due to invalid rationales such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, and WP:PRETTY. No valid arguments were given to keep last go-round. Ten...

consensus. Relisting comment: A lot of the arguments here are of the WP:ITSUSEFUL variety, which is not generally accepted as a good argument at AfD. Relisting...

all content that it's difficult to find elsewhere; see for example WP:ITSUSEFUL. If you want it for your own reference, it could be userfied. –Roscelese...

received any media coverage that I can find, so a big WP:ORG fail. WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good reason to keep it. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 19 October...

"too iconic" aside, nothing has changed, and said claim is, well... WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here...

keep this list. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a total rebuttal of any reason to keep content because of its utility:...

passes WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. The keep arguments here are all WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:SOURCESEXIST, etc. argument fallacies.4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 11 September...

article→SeniorStar (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Please read WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Redirect to main clash...

think about whether to include an article, but it probably falls into WP:ITSUSEFUL and against the principles of the GNG. Like you, I'm happy to defer to...

keep must demonstrate meeting WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, not simply saying WP:ITSUSEFUL to keep discographies. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Note: This...

upon what evidence? Ravenswing 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC) See also WP:ITSUSEFUL. Many things are useful to someone or many people but that is not alone...

only an assertion that sources exist by Altenmann (accompanied by a WP:ITSUSEFUL), one "keep by Altenmann", and one rather honest "I don't know" by Pam...

17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Delete All Keep votes above sum up to ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and THEREMUSTBESOURCES. None give an actual policy-based reason to keep...

part, i.e. applications. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not enough be in encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|...

standalone as "Wachregiment"—there are other words in the names. WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. buidhe 19:09, 3 February...

comment added by Djjazzyb (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Delete articles...

inefficient. And please tell me how any of these are useful, besides WP:ITSUSEFUL. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)...

list would be necessary. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)...

primary, and none of the others meet WP:IRS, and we can wave off any WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments. Meeting the GNG doesn't come close to meaning that there "might"...

for retaining content they find useful, which is a weak argument (WP:ITSUSEFUL). Sandstein 07:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [Hide this box] New to Articles for...

been treated by other writers - but usefulness does not mean notable WP:ITSUSEFUL - Epinoia (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

if it is ever needed. Kaynbred 00:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL: All encyclopedic content should be useful to someone, but not all content...

one person's taste. Celloville (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. There are countless combinations of characteristics which could be useful...

redirect will take care of the lack of initials, and for the rest, WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul...

a list about a public office. Deryck C. 14:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Secondly this topic lacks significant third...

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC) WP:ITSINTERESTING + wP:ITSUSEFUL? You are new to AfDs, I gather? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|...

gender WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a valid deletion argument either....William 12:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Ahem... did you even read the WP:ITSUSEFUL link you...

kept without substantiating their argument beyond the ever so common WP:ITSUSEFUL.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Keep. Abuse may...

December 2012 (UTC) The thing about your argument is it's ultimately WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, neither of which are arguments that will keep an article...

themselves or something. All other particiapation in other AFDs was mainly WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:PERNOM. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:09, 31...

retention. Most of the 2006 Keep !votes were variations on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. That may be true, but it still doesn't meet inclusion standards. Squeamish...

this could easily be fixed. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 21:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)...

about 99% of the articles here. Wozal (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)...

November 2022 (UTC) That isn’t a policy based argument. Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL.4meter4 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC) That’s just someone’s essay...

save relevant information is a more valid question (keeping in mind WP:ITSUSEFUL, however). Options include 1) identifying a target where this can be merged...

Delete. Sourced only to blog posts and forums; fails WP:GNG. The WP:ITSUSEFUL comments above should not count for much; likely sockpuppetry aside, deletion...

Comment. First off, WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument. Neither is WP:ITSUSEFUL. We don't keep books because it could potentially be helpful in one format...

using wikipedia. StanleyTAnderson (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC) The above...

to see arguments to avoid being used such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSINTERESTING. The rationale for deletion was, itself, not strong...

series of articles. Rillington (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL for a fan wiki. We have higher standards. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul...

team's website? Or the NFL's? Or even (horrors) in a book. Just because WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't mean it should be kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:04,...

a comment on this AfD's talk page (now G3-nominated), which fails WP:ITSUSEFUL: You can't delete this this is essential information for the unemployed...

interim basis. The rest of your comment is quite easily dismissed as an WP:ITSUSEFUL hand-wave. Tarc (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Keep This fulfills each...

Rorshacma and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Keep voters fail to provide an argument beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL, sadly, that's not enough and we need to respect WP:LISTN/WP:GNG. See...

The standards here are strict and we can't keep an article because WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT or because it could help advertise for the company. None...

and owners a major disservice. The argument is also an example of WP:ITSUSEFUL. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) We never list Wikipedia, we...

reliable. So I cannot honestly justify voting keep, since my argument is WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I can't get proper view of the sources Toughpigs...

Delete: Does indeed fit the description of a TV Guide. Don't buy the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Delete...

appalled that not a single argument above is policy based (WP:KEEPPER, WP:ITSUSEFUL, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 30...

changelogs, so "it's a changelog" is not a rationale for deletion. WP:ITSUSEFUL says "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument...

unpersuasive in light of applicable policy: for "it's useful" see WP:ITSUSEFUL, and as regards the view "I imagine that competitive Mahjong rules would...

its sources are the best PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Relisted to generate...

(talk) 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Comment That argument is basically WP:ITSUSEFUL Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

yet either. All of the arguments offered so far seem to amount to WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:HARMLESS, which are debatable anyway. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:08...

and redirected/disambiguated. Xmp (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC) So WP:ITSUSEFUL then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 07:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC) The above discussion...

transwiki'd to meta or the Foundation wiki; it's useful - but keep in mind WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid AfD argument for en-wiki.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul...

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

only its bylined reviews (previous discussion). Though that may be an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, it does indicate some importance in a limited field, which point...

a category around The Cantos.Giano (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL does not trump WP:OR. If you think it is valuable, and I don't deny it...

future generationsRainfixer (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Opinion is WP:ITSUSEFUL and not grounded in Wikipedia policy Geschichte (talk) 06:22, 3 August...

Lek (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC) While I'm glad it was useful, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a policy-based argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 11...

Many times I’ve seen keep voters without strong arguments rely on WP:ITSUSEFUL without stating why, or use the increasingly meaningless citation of...

Exceptionally going for a third relist. Editors are reminded that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument in these discussions. What is needed are secondary...

significant coverage. As for the argument that the article is helpful, see WP:ITSUSEFUL. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC) The article has...

lack of clearly delineated inclusion criteria. You have only made a WP:ITSUSEFUL (non-)argument. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Keep Passes...

point, but the word may is quite a weasel-word in a policy. I see that WP:ITSUSEFUL and perhaps even how it's WP:INTERESTING but this has been taken to mean...

page useful and informative. Voyager640 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good reason to keep a page. Unless this lady is notable for something...

website that hosts a better plot summary for this episode (Series). But WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep this... maybe transwiki to Wikibooks?...

only that you believe it is; without such reasons, it falls under WP:ITSUSEFUL. Whether it's being worked on is not directly relevant to whether it should...

CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC) That sounds like a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. Who decided that these particular entities were icons over others...

Keep - now a useful dab page (and, when it comes to disambigations, WP:ITSUSEFUL does need to be considers, IMHO). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58...

argument holds no water whatsoever. You're still arguing WP:LOSE and WP:ITSUSEFUL. There's no history to merge; the original article from the AFD you linked...

reliable sources to show notability. We can't keep an article because WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The reason we have the guidelines...

well sourced. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. We really need sources. Msnicki (talk) 15:54...

some examples where it makes sense, or maybe thats just me saying WP:ITSUSEFUL; and others where its just plain silly to me: premierships, presidencies...

yourself with the policies and clarifications, such as WP:ITSUSELESS aka WP:ITSUSEFUL before voting. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:53...

--Rtkat3 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Rtkat3, Are you saying WP:ITSUSEFUL? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 27 April 2021...

topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC) So WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSUSEFUL? Till 13:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an...

closer did not present an argument, and many keep votes fall into WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ITSINTERESTING with a rider on that WP:IAR should prevail. I don't...

doesn't make the square notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED). Point 3 fails WP:ITSUSEFUL, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:35, 28 March...

deletes, a comment about how problematic it is, and a WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSUSEFUL keep comment, and a consensus couldn't be found Liz? I respect your opinion...

--The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. WP is not a repository of sporting results...

31.118.248 (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This comment fails WP:ITSUSEFUL WossOccurring (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Absolutely keep! Barbossa...

on the internet, but it just needs more sourcing since we can't use WP:ITSUSEFUL as a justification. If anyone can access it, this might offer something...

information on stuff that's too obscure to be notable. See also WP:MERCY, WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 25 March 2019...

employed), the case here. Joe 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Speedy keep per WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Carnildo (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Unhelpful comment Carnildo...

it has to meet notability guidelines, in this case WP:LISTN. And WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC) The...

Scanlan (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC) I would advise that you read WP:ITSUSEFUL. "Stating that something is useful in a vacuum does not help assess its...

that has contributed to notability on Wikipedia and could fall under WP:ITSUSEFUL in a way. (While that applies to articles, I could argue that you're saying...

May 2012 (UTC) Comment: I wonder how this AfD will be closed with a WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:IAR (released in 2007 = historical), and an unreliable source, a how...

constituencies. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC) Keep. WP:ITSUSEFUL per the arguments put forward by Rupples and Elemimele. I support renaming...

and does not pass the relevant SNG it should be deleted, full stop. WP:ITSUSEFUL is a textbook reason of why not to keep an article. Devonian Wombat (talk)...

WP:NOTDUP? Go figure. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. I don't believe that the category merits use, particularly as the category...

resorting to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL rationales. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) If you actually read WP:ITSUSEFUL rather than just throw...

(talk) 20:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Please consider WP:ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 8 September 2023...

meaningless plaything. Deli nk (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Delete. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good keep rationale. I don't think this fits well in any project...

applied here. Other arguments for keep above are just WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE - all of which we are told to avoid and closers should...

made then that had far less to do with policy than with WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITEXISTS and other similar crackpot notions. A decision made in 2007...

kind of unclear on lower level listings. But while I am well aware WP:ITSUSEFUL is a bad argument overall, I think that listings of such tourist attractions...

usefulness[1] which contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Consult WP:ITSUSEFUL for more information on why such contributions are to be avoided. If you'd...

(UTC) As far as casting light on the issue, this may fall into the WP:ITSUSEFUL fallacy. There are plenty of cases where more information on the activities...

should not be deleted. Blankspace540 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC) WP:BADGERING jp×g 09:26, 10...

Keep as a useful list. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC). WP:ITSUSEFUL - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Keep per all above...

Whether you believe it is a reasonable subject does not really matter, WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT. What matters is whether it's a suitable subject for a Wikipedia...

2A00:23C8:3B00:BB01:8454:C8C2:377C:F541 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC) See Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL. That's not really a valid vote for keeping when notability and coverage...

to say here. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT... Avilich (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Keep. Cobbling...

10:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Thats not a valid rationale either - see WP:ITSUSEFUL. And Gamepass is not a relevant comparison point. Gamepass is comparable...

I said, it pains me to see this gone without being saved anywhere. WP:ITSUSEFUL, and yes, I know that's a bad argument. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul...

encyclopedic.--Feddx (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC) perhaps a read of WP:ITSUSEFUL will help explain why we don't keep articles for that reason.Mtking (edits)...

simply on principle. cherkash (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC) That's WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSPOPULAR, which are two reasons not to keep on principle. soetermans...

considered "significant coverage". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are not good arguments for keeping the article. The subject...

we might be able to add. Really you are just saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL and trying to find any shred of anything that might make it look like...

amounts don't matter. -M.Altenmann >t 18:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)...

a lot of readers have found this separate list useful. And before WP:ITSUSEFUL is raised, utility is key to determining whether to present lists on the...

profile. Thus notability is not established and you should also read WP:ITSUSEFUL for arguments to avoid. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)...

comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Comment. None of the above...

Mercian (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC) An appeal to pity combined with WP:ITSUSEFUL? How utterly unconvincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 13...

(talk) 04:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC) WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:ITSUSEFUL apply to what you just said. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2010...

would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT...

Wikipedia. Passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC). WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. And neither is WP:ITSNOTABLE. Sources, please...

by definition, be informative and useful to its readers" portion of WP:ITSUSEFUL is satisfied enough to keep it around. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:26, 21 August...

clearly-false claim of vandalism. The reason for the second unredirection was WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is only slightly better, so restore redirect...

useful. But just as WP:ITSUSELESS is not a valid argument for deletion, WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument to keep. So how "useful" this page is or is not...

has been spent... WP:MERCY. I feel the article would help viewers... WP:ITSUSEFUL. There are a number of other minor characters that merit their own articles...

I2karankiran (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Hi. You may want to see WP:ITSUSEFUL. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Redirect to Directorate...

changes. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC) This is a kin to WP:ITSUSEFUL and as GB fan said WP is not a news source or a replacement for a organisations...

contribs) 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC) So it should be kept because WP:ITSUSEFUL? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Well, Wikipedia...

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, 1 February 2020...

not a very good argument for that being a Wikipedia article -- see WP:ITSUSEFUL. Can you address the questions of notability and significant, independent...

141.161 (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC) That is a WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. The fact that it is difficult for new products to establish...

related articles. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Bias is resolved by unbiased articles. Chiswick...

The difficulty of finding it elsewhere isn't really a valid reason. WP:ITSUSEFUL ~DC Talk To Me 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

though. Re the reasoning in your final sentence, WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not strong arguments. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2019...

encyclopedic information" is not a valid argument either, as it boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL. Hut 8.5 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Weak keep If this news source is reliable...

Mroddman (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid arguments. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC) What...

doesn't;'t apply in this context. The above argument by Visviva is an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, which is listed in the arguments to avoid at AFD.4meter4 (talk)...

eventually or because it could be useful to anyone researching the film. (WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:CRYSTAL)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Update: SHMILY...

keep !vote above, as often in these issues, is a collection of Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NOHARM, and WP:ITEXISTS, except we don't even really know it ever...

12:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for providing the WP:ITSUSEFUL link. Note, however, that WP:ITSUSEFUL includes the following: "If reasons are given, "usefulness"...

"that was weird — where's the article about the metre?". See also WP:ITSUSEFUL which explains that "Just saying something is useful or useless without...

coverage within the week.Partitas (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL, but appearing on TV 5 times doesn't necessarily make someone notable...

provide the significant depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG notability. WP:ITSUSEFUL to have a page warning us that this is not a high-quality journal but...

September 2009 (UTC) Keep per Oren0...and per the cardinal Wikisin of WP:ITSUSEFUL. Not a valid keep reason...but...I go back to this article frequently...

useful addition Lajmmoore (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Crossroads -talk- 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Keep This is actually...

table will suffice for most purposes. The keeps seem to be leaning on ITSUSEFUL and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and so far I cannot see a cogent argument being...

very useful category. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Usefulness is entirely subjective.--User:Namiba...

WP:CRYSTAL. What we need here are reliable sources that pass WP:RS. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument for keeping a page because something can be useful...

information... Jasepl (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) See WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Why thank you! Ever so much....

--Rtkat3 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC) @Rtkat3: "Good information" is WP:ITSUSEFUL. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Delete - If notability...

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

contributions before this. -Kai445 (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a valid argument either. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 9 October 2012...

08:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Kieronoldham, I can appreciate your WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, but given that this content has both WP:VERIFIABILITY issues...

articles with a full citation. --JD554 (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL :D --Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC) That page talks about...

well-known author merely means that it is more likely that sources exist. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article. We have to show independent...

Meets GNG? How, and do you mean NLIST? Also, be mindful of where "WP:ITSUSEFUL" goes... -Indy beetle (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Delete Lacks independent...

discussion, not a vote. I gave zero weight to arguments that were some form of ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT, what about foo / per other AfD, or INTERESTING. I also gave nearly...

used for calls of deletion. ₪RicknAsia₪ 18:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is an essay, and doesn't necessarily represent consensus. It certainly...

be sourced and added. Amitized (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Crossroads -talk- 05:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC) There are some pages within...

no real need to delete. -Elmer Clark 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. Except, it's NOT. It's, in fact, _less_ useful than a single external...

shame if it was deleted. TurboGUY (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good argument for retention, besides, all the information can...

unrelated subjects. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Just a WP:ITSUSEFUL vote. Discard. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Before you urge others...

comment added by Veryirregularuser (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 July 2016 WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an argument. You're saying WP:BEFORE, but it fails WP:LISTN. soetermans...

12 February 2014 (UTC) I'd also like to point out that saying that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not really a good argument for an article's inclusion. I get frustrated...

they're useful. We keep them because they meet notability guidelines. WP:ITSUSEFUL has never been an argument that has kept a page on that basis alone. Everything...

Delete: Fails INDISCRIMINATE, LISTN and NOTDIR, which rather trumps the WP:ITSUSEFUL keep arguments above. Ravenswing 22:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Keep per...

understand an article.2005 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC) @2005: WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:NOHARM are not valid arguments. Try again...

claiming it had sources was incorrect. The only other keep !vote was WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which don't override WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm not...

images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Previous AFD kept due entirely to WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:HARMLESS arguments. I fail to see how this is a valid list, given...

February 2019 (UTC) Do you have a policy-based reason to keep, because WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't going to cut it.--Pontificalibus 07:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC) The...

generally hold with quoting WP:ATA, you may want to have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:INTERESTING and WP:NOHARM at this point — iridescent (talk to me!)...

potentially restrict discussion and research on the subject in the future—so WP:ITSUSEFUL then? The only arguments against it being kept seem to be more centred...

(UTC) The rationale used in previous deletion discussions amounts to WP:ITSUSEFUL, we already have a way of showing that a journal or a publisher is not...

12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Okay, so that moves it to WP:ILIKEIT / WP:ITSUSEFUL. Which can be said about any list someone can come up with basically....

comment added by 75.131.76.157 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Biruitorul Talk 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Which says: If reasons...

NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:PLENTY not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2011...

information. Easily meets GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL not a reason for keeping. So telling people that trade is virtually nothing...

August 2020 (UTC) Delete or redirect: Brushing off the illegitimate WP:ITSUSEFUL and "All royals are notable!" arguments -- no one's arguing for the notability...

the balls to apply Wikipedia policy and disregard the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:INTERESTING !votes.Charles (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC) *Keep...

article is a lower bar than the threshold for having its own article. WP:ITSUSEFUL can be an argument for including content within an article, since after...

principles. Especially when there are additional concerns such as WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. I am sure anyone who considers creating a kangaroo character...

were trivial to the point of irrelevance (Yahoo! pick of the week) An WP:ITSUSEFUL !vote One who cited a book with a one-sentence mention that literally...

subject. We don't have WP articles simply because the information is WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC) it was not supposed to have any...

—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Please check WP:ITSUSEFUL, and why it is NOT a valid argument in deletions. --Piotr Konieczny aka...

helps keep the crankery in the talk pages under control. (I realize WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good argument for an AfD but this is an MfD and I think it makes...

database listings of the company. As far as the information being useful (WP:ITSUSEFUL), being useful is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article. I...

comprehensive look-see. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC) WP:IAR?...

just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28...

the cats listed above. – Fayenatic London 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC) ITSUSEFUL is usually not a great reason to keep a cat, esp if it violates WP:EGRS...

by Nohorbee. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew...

taking up much space. --John (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC) @John: WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid rationale, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw...

of redirect for such names (searchable terms) is required. I know WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument overall, but those are historical or present names...

allowed. There is a way to cross-wikilink to non-English Wikipedias. WP:ITSUSEFUL is also not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up...

is to have information on it, topics here have to be notable. See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Largoplazo (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Agree. "Usefulness" is...

could have, to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld. You're also resorting to an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument now, which is not valid in an AfD. Your voting record, in case...

is being sold or hyped. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL, and please show how any of these meet WP:N. - Biruitorul Talk 16:41,...

only getting bigger and less discriminate. Last AFDs were full of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEITs — I can't see a single policy based reason for keeping...

is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere." Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. This also rings a bit hollow since you're the creator and main contributor...

threshold for inclusion. The "keep" !votes are entirely along the lines of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. Closing admin please take this into account. McWomble...

which has already gone through a deletion review. (Also: please read: WP:ITSUSEFUL. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC) In response to those...

Far too many !votes above fall squarely into either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL. While conversion is a notable issue (as the general topic articles Hut...

--Albany NY (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC) So your rationale is WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)...

it are personally not very convincing (WP:TOOSOON, WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL...). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Keep...

blocked as a disruptive editor. You also need to take into account that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason to keep an article, nor is WP:ITSPOPULAR, WP:GHITS...

As far as people accessing the page, we don't keep articles because WP:ITSUSEFUL or just because a person is popular in the here and now. Articles must...

otherwise good article. CodeCat (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)...

in other English websites. --SM (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. Articles must meet WP:N and WP:ORG. this...

Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Please have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sources must discuss the concept of long marriages otherwise it is WP:OR...

actual significant coverage. Secondly, you can't use WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL as reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Thanks...

reasons still hold.SPNic (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC) ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and ITEXISTS? Badger Drink (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Because...

editor has persistently reverted. Comments in edit summaries infer WP:ITSUSEFUL ViperSnake151  Talk  05:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Stale User has not edited...

only remember a species name? - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL. I don't believe these "articles" fit in anywhere with our criteria for...

this now passes WP:GNG. Also, how exactly do you define "useful"? WP:ITSUSEFUL NemesisAT (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Redirect as per Thryduulf -...

rationale for keeping. Conyo14 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) As usual, WP:ITSUSEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Comment It is no longer...

something is notable and to help verify any claims made. How useful it is (WP:ITSUSEFUL) also doesn't give notability either. Something can be done well and be...

February 2020 (UTC) Comment. All I'm seeing from the "Oppose" camp is WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:VALINFO. Nothing to make the case for an exception...

Comment - it looks to me that most of the keep-votes are based on WP:ITSUSEFUL, while the delete-votes are based on the Wikipedia:Template namespace...

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG and failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:V. Even WP:ITSUSEFUL makes no sense here because no, it is not useful; the usefulness of this...

as the articles might have been and as useful as they might be (see WP:ITSUSEFUL), this article fails WP:GNG I'm afraid. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:26, 4 September...

arguments tend to rest on illegitimate grounds such as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL, spam some bulletin boards with oft-obscene exhortations to "take the...

all be true but how does this subject meet WP:ORG, not just being WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I wrote that specifically in...

requirements of WP:GNG. It is a valid policy-based !vote, unlike the WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITEXISTS clutter from "keep" !votes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track)...

--LlamaAl (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Keep - per WP:COMMONSENSE. WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid for a reason, but if somebody has, indeed, played...

timeline-like format? ~Mable (chat) 08:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC) @Wgolf: Saying WP:ITSUSEFUL without explaining why it's useful doesn't help the deletion discussion...

that encyclopedic and useful" Djflem (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Delete:...

years and I am sure you are familiar with WP:ATA, more specifically WP:ITSUSEFUL. Could you provide a reason to ignore the BLP concerns and the tabloid...

this information. Deterence Talk 21:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC) See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM. People are not "hell-bent on censoring" anything - they...

articles on the topic, whereas notices to reddit attract content-free WP:ITSUSEFULs like the above that the poster incorrectly thinks will influence the fate...

existing cleanup templates without reasons. Most of the "keep" !votes are WP:ITSUSEFUL or otherwise not based in policy, and many of the arguments for deprecation...

that the fanboy POV-pushers would flock in droves to tender WELIKEIT/ITSUSEFUL votes. There's no need to clog process with doomed AfDs. Ravenswing 18:41...

developed over time." In short, Carrite is arguing repatedly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL and not commenting on the notability aspects or availability/lack of references...

involving illegal websites streaming their content. This is clear WP:SPAM. WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't an argument here, and I wouldn't continue any reversions. External...

elements are notable in and of themselves, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Also WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, if we're just going to cite guidelines and essays. PC78...

(talk) 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC) That's an expanded version of WP:ITSUSEFUL, which is generally considered irrelevant in deletion discussions. Yunshui 雲‍水...

July 2020 (UTC) I too stand by my delete. I am completely unswayed by WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments for visible categories; please re-read WP:NONDEFINING: "A defining...

way. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC) I don't think WP:ITSUSEFUL / WP:ITSINTERESTING works here. It's one of the reasons why professional...

"WP:ITSUSEFUL" or "WP:ILIKEIT" if you're going to try and brush off my concerns like this. Dthomsen8 is yet another person throwing in an ITSUSEFUL vote...

“navigational” purpose (which as I’ve said before is basically a synonym for WP:ITSUSEFUL at this point). Lists are nowhere near as useful or informative as an...

June 2017 (UTC) Keep. Useful. KMF (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC) WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Pppery 02:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC) For articles...

(UTC) @Thomas Veil: I also get where you are coming from, but note WP:ITSUSEFUL. Those games were not notable back then, they became notable only once...

deleting pages that provide useful information and have analogues. Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL is not considered a valid argument in AFD discussions...

when your reasons to keep amount to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Resolute 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC) There are any number of potential...

must be cited to be WP:Notable. It has to come from somewhere. b/ WP:ITSUSEFUL c/ we DO follow community consensus on Policies & Guidelines, each Article/List...

say keep it. - Navarre0107 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument for AfDs. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)...

notability. As far as other arguments go, saying that something is useful (WP:ITSUSEFUL), that you particularly like it (WP:ILIKEIT), or that other articles would...

seemed overwhelmingly delete. The only keep responses were an Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL argument and by an IP/temporary account where this was his or her only...

reasons explained over and over, of WP:NOTDIR, which trumps the feeble WP:ITSUSEFUL we hear with each losing batch process. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:24, 4...

indiscriminate list, but has encyclopedic value as a reference work is obviously ITSUSEFUL. The topic is clearly notable and of importance is obviously WP:Clearly...

AFD showed a consensus to keep; that one, too, showed nothing but WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT !votes from every single keeper. Some even argued that...

not an indiscriminate collection of information or a link repository.WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument in deletion discussions (and frankly, neither...

useful.Aurornisxui (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Please read WP:ITSUSEFUL Spiderone 23:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC) I have and I'm not using "useful"...