DOKUMEN123.COM

stuff exists for a reasonWP:Some stuff exists for a reason WP:SSEFARWP:SSEFAR WP:SSEWP:SSE This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against...

No further edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was delete. WP:SSEFAR does not override WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and Wikipedia's other policies and...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SJK 171 also gives precedent for keeping through WP:SSEFAR. 400spartans (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC) SJK 171's nomination was withdrawn...

deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Keep per WP:SSEFAR and WP:LISTN. While individual physical therapy schools are components of...

(talk) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. I think the second point of WP:SSEFAR applies here. Even though the "similar articles exist" argument isn't enough...

wouldn't assume that a mass nomination would automatically succeed. Per WP:SSEFAR, there is no apparent difference in notability between this and any of the...

Smerge into campaign article as per Ansh666. As noted below by Muboshgu, WP:SSEFAR can be used as a argument for keeping, which although not persuading me...

argument: consistency is important and welcome, which is why we have WP:SSEFAR. SportingFlyer talk 10:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Delete - Not a useful list...

—PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Precedent is relevant to AfDs. See WP:SSEFAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.201 (talk) 08:14, 5 October...

into consideration. Furthermore, the OTHERSTUFF essay itself includes WP:SSEFAR (some stuff exists for a reason) which says This essay is not a standard...

categorization schemes currently employed by this very website (cf. WP:SSEFAR). There are other ways to categorize fictional characters, but they are...

No further edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was delete. WP:SSEFAR does not override WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and Wikipedia's other policies and...

this. So yes, there is a time and place for an OTHERSTUFF argument. WP:SSEFAR is a part of that same essay. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)...

undid the redirect, with an edit summary of "Bold restoration, per WP:SSEFAR". WP:SSEFAR says: In categories of items with a finite number of entries where...

deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Keep per WP:SSEFAR and WP:LISTN. While individual physical therapy schools are components of...

—PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Precedent is relevant to AfDs. See WP:SSEFAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.201 (talk) 08:14, 5 October...

Smerge into campaign article as per Ansh666. As noted below by Muboshgu, WP:SSEFAR can be used as a argument for keeping, which although not persuading me...

this. So yes, there is a time and place for an OTHERSTUFF argument. WP:SSEFAR is a part of that same essay. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)...

(talk) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Keep. I think the second point of WP:SSEFAR applies here. Even though the "similar articles exist" argument isn't enough...

argument: consistency is important and welcome, which is why we have WP:SSEFAR. SportingFlyer talk 10:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Delete - Not a useful list...

wouldn't assume that a mass nomination would automatically succeed. Per WP:SSEFAR, there is no apparent difference in notability between this and any of the...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SJK 171 also gives precedent for keeping through WP:SSEFAR. 400spartans (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC) SJK 171's nomination was withdrawn...

into consideration. Furthermore, the OTHERSTUFF essay itself includes WP:SSEFAR (some stuff exists for a reason) which says This essay is not a standard...

Nested negatives notwithstanding, the following illuminating passage from WP:SSEFAR#Precedent in usage (which is an essay) suggests Paine's relative weighting...

apparently. This would probably be dismissed as an OSE argument, but WP:SSEFAR. I think it's a result of editor interests, most editors simply don't care...

about my above statement being based on WP:OSE; I had even thought about WP:SSEFAR ("Precedent in usage") over there, but even making a case based on that...

apparently. This would probably be dismissed as an OSE argument, but WP:SSEFAR. I think it's a result of editor interests, most editors simply don't care...