Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of filename extensions
this is easily justifiable as a  from the parent article, and it is "helpful" or "useful" as S Marshall comments in that it compiles and organizes relevant information in a manner that is easy to browse or search. Utility is very much a relevant question for lists because it's often a question of why we should use that format. "Poorly referenced" is a poor deletion argument, however, because it just looks at the current state of content rather than its potential, regardless of whether something can be fixed. Whatever is "unverifiable" should be removed, whatever is verifiable should not because it can be sourced. "Incomplete" is also not a deletion rationale for lists, as no one would pretend there is such a thing as a "complete" list of filename extensions (as opposed to, for example, a complete list of Best Picture winners, state capitals, etc.). The extent to which these lists can or should be trimmed down, or whether they need to be maintained in more than one list as they are here or merged, are not deletion issues. See also , another poor deletion argument raised by the above commenter
— User:Postdlf, 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SPLIT||WP:SUSCEPTIBLE (Wikipedia:Splitting)