Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFF system (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFF system[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research atarted from a [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1229919 single humorous artcle. Coincidentally it was created by a single-purpose account soon after the joke was published. There is no more siignificant references beyond wp mirrors and blogs. The previous AfD was closed kept as "well referenced" because the voters-keepers failed to notice that only one of these discusses the subject. The rest are various references to independent jokes about picofurlongs, microfortnights and the likes, none of which notices that they may be collected into a FFF system. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons in the past AfD (which had a very clear "keep" consensus), and the multiple references in the article (including several books). Both the FFF system as a whole and the units within it (microfortnight, furlong per fortnight, etc.) are notable (either would be sufficient to keep the article). Searching finds numerous WP:RS discussing both the FFF system as a whole and the units within it. The FFF system is not a joke, but an illustration used in multiple textbooks. The nom has failed to do a proper WP:BEFORE check, and deserves a WP:TROUT for re-nominating this. -- 101.117.31.220 (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP and per previous AFD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:23, 12 September 2014 (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.