This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments...
Click to read more »art in Milwaukee? --Theredproject (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS not relevant.198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Relisted to...
Click to read more »duplication in main space. Rupples (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument for keep. TarnishedPathtalk 00:10, 13 December 2023...
Click to read more »South Wales Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument. If you think those articles shouldn't exist then...
Click to read more »Sheldybett (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Okay, you're refering to WP:OTHERTHINGS, which is an argument to avoid. Maybe those lists themselves are not...
Click to read more »state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice...
Click to read more »from the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Also note WP:OTHERTHINGS. --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Delete - as per nom and...
Click to read more »WP:GNG. WP:OTHERTHINGS doesn't help, and there's no requirement for completeness. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC) From WP:OTHERTHINGS: 'If someone...
Click to read more »laureate. That said, I am aware this veers sharply into the realm of WP:OTHERTHINGS, on which basis I'm giving this only a weak keep (in fact, the weakest...
Click to read more »coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 10:21...
Click to read more »namespace that has been at least nominally useful at some point, all otherthings being equal. Graham87 09:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »February 2023 (UTC) Keep per StarTrekker. Plenty of coverage provided. WP:OTHERTHINGS regarding Nick Wilde is not a valid argument for deletion. --Cerebral726...
Click to read more »satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is well established as not being a strong argument. How does this "clearly...
Click to read more »16 August 2011 (UTC) This is a prime example argument to fit in WP:OTHERTHINGS. OlYellerTalktome 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Keep - clearly notable...
Click to read more »scattered and off-topic subjects that can be included under the umbrella of OTHERTHINGS; no clear suggestions to improve article content; comments which indicate...
Click to read more »longer than last year's.Then it was the Navy SEAL copypastaThen itwas"OtherThings"againIalso-like-sloths-fooleryChairman Xi Foolery 3: Return of the General...
Click to read more »can more easily navigate around WPs back of house. It can also have otherthings too but I would see this as its primary function. Cinderella157 (talk)...
Click to read more »can handle this easily. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. This discussion has...
Click to read more »point but He did write science fiction before this fact.Well there were otherthings like the accidentaly death of my oldest twin. but we wont go there. I...
Click to read more »fuzzy teddy-bears Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch do not have pages. WP:otherthings, I know, but wth. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)...
Click to read more »about the "GNU/Linux" naming stuff, and it shouldn't have Anything Vs. Otherthing. It's not about controvercy or disputes. This is the history of the names...
Click to read more »fuzzy teddy-bears Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch do not have pages. WP:otherthings, I know, but wth. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)...
Click to read more »from the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Also note WP:OTHERTHINGS. --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Delete - as per nom and...
Click to read more »art in Milwaukee? --Theredproject (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS not relevant.198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Relisted to...
Click to read more »Sheldybett (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Okay, you're refering to WP:OTHERTHINGS, which is an argument to avoid. Maybe those lists themselves are not...
Click to read more »memory would be small. To work it out theoretically I'd need amongst otherthings the number of cycles it takes to calculate a single element of the resultant...
Click to read more »16 August 2011 (UTC) This is a prime example argument to fit in WP:OTHERTHINGS. OlYellerTalktome 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Keep - clearly notable...
Click to read more »laureate. That said, I am aware this veers sharply into the realm of WP:OTHERTHINGS, on which basis I'm giving this only a weak keep (in fact, the weakest...
Click to read more »it is mainly WP:OVERCAT when it becomes full of people noteworthy for otherthings-- like say, being a duchess themseves, etc. Carlaude:Talk 04:27, 30 September...
Click to read more »bad r good effects of Muslim Fasting (which means without water and any otherthing else for average 12 houres ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by True...
Click to read more »policies? Ravenswing 04:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) @Kashmiri, firstly WP:OTHERTHINGS applies here. Each subject should be evaluated on its own merits. Secondly...
Click to read more »establishing articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument that should be used in deletion discussions. You argued...
Click to read more »(UTC) Keep as it meets GNG and has worldwide coverage. I'll IAR and do OTHERTHINGS by pointing out the fact that various incidents like Wikipedia:Articles...
Click to read more »"guest" I think we're stretching the idea of "top of one's field". I know OTHERTHINGS is a flimsy argument but it would be a clear indicator of bias if we...
Click to read more »about the "GNU/Linux" naming stuff, and it shouldn't have Anything Vs. Otherthing. It's not about controvercy or disputes. This is the history of the names...
Click to read more »start this again you have a thorough read of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OTHERTHINGS. You made changes, they were reverted and you were asked to discuss them...
Click to read more »South Wales Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument. If you think those articles shouldn't exist then...
Click to read more »duplication in main space. Rupples (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument for keep. TarnishedPathtalk 00:10, 13 December 2023...
Click to read more »September 2024 (UTC) it had no sources, one of the reversions was per otherthings, the other had no reason given, and it was pure fancruft written in an...
Click to read more »state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice...
Click to read more »WP:GNG. WP:OTHERTHINGS doesn't help, and there's no requirement for completeness. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC) From WP:OTHERTHINGS: 'If someone...
Click to read more »policies? Ravenswing 04:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) @Kashmiri, firstly WP:OTHERTHINGS applies here. Each subject should be evaluated on its own merits. Secondly...
Click to read more »establishing articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument that should be used in deletion discussions. You argued...
Click to read more »can handle this easily. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. This discussion has...
Click to read more »satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is well established as not being a strong argument. How does this "clearly...
Click to read more »February 2023 (UTC) Keep per StarTrekker. Plenty of coverage provided. WP:OTHERTHINGS regarding Nick Wilde is not a valid argument for deletion. --Cerebral726...
Click to read more »(UTC) Keep as it meets GNG and has worldwide coverage. I'll IAR and do OTHERTHINGS by pointing out the fact that various incidents like Wikipedia:Articles...
Click to read more »satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is well established as not being a strong argument. How does this "clearly...
Click to read more »coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC) WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 10:21...
Click to read more »