Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFF system

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFF system

FFF system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fortnight is common parlance in the UK; furlongs are in the UK the standard distance for horse races; and firkins for barrels of beer. None of these is obscure, and all are covered in List of unusual units of measurement. The talk page thereof mentions fractions of the firkin and mutliples thereof. Merge and delete. Si Trew (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure I understand the rationale for deletion. The article isn't solely about how "fortnight" and "firkin" are obscure archaic terms, it's about how they're sometimes used together to explain or test unit conversion, particularly in the form of "furlongs per fortnight". There seem to be plenty of hits for "furlongs per fortnight" as example conversions in engineering and school textbooks, and I imagine there's at least one source (possibly the "College Physics" book already cited in the article, although I can't check that) that remarks on its widespread usage. "FFF system" may be a minor neologism, though, and could merit a move to
    McGeddon (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Actually, College Physics is searchable in Google Books, and only appears to be using furlongs per fortnight as a single example in an exercise. A search for "furlongs per fortnight is" turns up Codenotes for Web Services in Java and .Net by Gregory Brill, which says "Furlongs per fortnight is often used as a humorous alternative to meters per second or miles per second for measuring the speed of light, c.", which is at least getting there. --
McGeddon (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Absolutely Keep!. There is no rationale for deletion, whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.154.8 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is encyclopedic, well referenced, notable, and informative.—GraemeMcRaetalk 04:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sourcing in the article's a little thin, but I'm confident there's more out there given how often I've run into jokes around this system. The specific rationales given in the nomination don't make a great deal of sense to me - the article is about using the units to create a system of measurement, rather than the individual units themselves. ~ mazca talk 08:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I do not doubt that this exercise exists, and I agree that the sources verify that the exercise is done, I do not see sourcing which indicates the notability of this exercise.
    WP:N says, popularity is not notability. For me to vote keep I would want to see a source for meta data about the article's subject and not just more instances of its use. Blue Rasberry 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. It cites its sources, and I learned something about a system that apparently has been used before consistently. Great subject! 76.239.59.53 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, sourced, and makes an important point about the conventional nature of systems of measurement. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is in use (even if mostly as a joke). Since there are references to FFF system and its units, the article is quite relevant. MDZ. 3 August 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.145.153 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    not do both). 15:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
But this is the main article pointed to by that section, and includes sourced material not included there. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks very much like
    note within the references. I feel that all of the relevant subsections, such as 'micro-fortnight' can either be ejected and redirected to 'fortnight', rather than allowing this apparent joke to continue. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There are several reliable references given for "microfortnight", two for "furlongs per fortnight", and one for the FFF system as a whole. It's a joke, but a widespread notable joke, used to make several important points (such as the point that the metric system is really much more sensible). -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not satisfied that this aspect has been adequately sourced and dealt with. At present, we have to take it on trust that it is "widespread and notable[
    weasel words]" - this is clearly not satisfactory. Until such time as that is demonstrated within the article, the most sensible course of action is to delete. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FFF_system&oldid=1137839925"