Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang phrases (3rd nomination)
1) The part of  prohibiting "lists of defintions" is disputed, because there exist dozens of :Category:Glossaries|glossaries which are properly encyclopedic. 2) This is not a guide on how words, idioms, etc. ''should'' be used, but a document which describes how they ''are'' used; this is a difference which distinguishes a violation of  from an encylopedic article. 3) The existence of anything similar on Wiktionary should not have any bearing on this article. Just like Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes|categories and lists can complement each other, so too can glossaries on Wikipedia and definitions on Wiktionary complement each other. Redundancy is not always bad. 4) "''|There are some times when 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information 'useful
— User:DHowell, 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:USEFUL (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)