Should I sell my Nikon 18-55mm lens?

I have a D3000 and purchased the 50mm lens before leaving the country. It unfortunately didn't arrive until after I left, so I haven't played with it yet. For the last couple events where I shot, I tried to limit the lens to 50mm and found it very limiting for the most part. Then I tried it at 35mm for all my shots and it worked out really well. So I'm planning on purchasing the 35mm 1.8 when I get back to the US.

I really like low light photography, portraits/group shots, and landscape. I'm planning on getting a 10-24mm before the end of the year for when I go backpacking in Europe.

So in my camera bag I'll have with me a 35mm, a 10-24mm, and a 50mm. Is the 18-55mm worth keeping around? I wouldn't mind selling it to help pay for the wide-angle. Actually, at that, would the 50mm be worth keeping as well, or should I sell it? I rarely should past 35mm, and when I do it's usually 40mm.

Added (1). Februa: I don't believe you understand much about communication, since you seem to be very poor at it. There was no reason to belittle me for asking a question. I never claimed to know a lot about photography, that's why I asked this question in the first place. I was hoping to get responses from individuals who know better, and who know how answer a question without attacking it.

I never said I could tell the difference between 35 and 40mm. I said I rarely ever shoot higher than 35mm, and if I do, it will almost never go above 40mm. With your answer, I would have assumed it is never appropriate to use a prime lens since it lacks a focal range. Though I'm sure almost every single photographer who knows anything about photography would disagree with that statement.

For my purposes, I almost never deviate from 35mm. That's why I want the 35 prime. Whenever I should landscape, I never deviate from 18mm, because that is the minimum on my lens. That's why I want the 10-24, so I can get be

Added (2). Better landscape shots. If I'm out shooting landscape, I'm going to have the 10-24mm lens. If I'm doing group or portrait shots, I'm going to have the 35mm on. I'm asking if it is worthwhile to keep the 18-55 around, seeing as how I don't think I'm ever going to touch it again. And while in Europe, i want to keep what I have on me to a minimum. Carrying 4 lenses around is not what I would call an ideal situation, especially because then I'm always going to be wondering "which lens should I put on now".

As far as the 50 is concerned, based on the type of pictures I mentioned I like taking, is it worth keeping the 50 around as well? Will it give me something the 35 won't? If between the 18-55 and the 50 I was only planning on keeping 1, which would be the better one to keep (remembering that I will have a 35 and a 10-24)?

Now please, don't respond to any more of my questions unless you have something useful to say.

I use Canon products but I have the 18-55, 50mm, 28-200 and a 75-300 and I plan on keeping all of them because of various uses that I find handy.

Me, I wouldn't sell it just because down the road you may want it.

You could try, but if you were lucky you would only make like $50.

Have you thought about possible damage, let alone inconvenience when switching lenses for different shots. You are heroic in assuming you will know beforehand the type of shot you will ever encounter and the lens that's needed.that's needed.
I don't believe you can tell the difference between 35 and 40 mm lens shots or that you understand much about photography at all. Otherwise you would know the value of the versatile 18-55mm.

If the 50mm does not work for you might as well sell it. I'd keep the 18-55.It will not fetch much and it can come in useful for one of those situations where you have to respond quickly. Mine works well for family gatherings and landscapes.