Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFF system

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[edit]

(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. —Radagast 3 (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 furlongs per fortnight. --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]

Speedy keep: It does not appear the nominator has read the article in question. The article is not about the furlong, fortnight, and firkin as units of measurement, but about a system of measurement that uses those as its base units. --Carnildo (talk) 21:50, 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. No question. --bender235 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is encyclopedic, well referenced, notable, and informative.—GraemeMcRae^talk 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. User:McGeddon above cites a book by Brill which says something about why the exercise is done, but this is not convincing to me as a marker of notability. Although this is a relatively popular learning gimmick, that is still what this is. There are lots of learning gimmicks in existence, few are notable, and as the first paragraph of 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. -- Radagast 3 (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 Blue Rasberry, and redirect to list of unusual units of measurement#FFF units Bwrs (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) or, in the alternative, merge (but do 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. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks very much like original research, WP:NEO or WP:NFT to me. There are mentions of the individual units of measurements in the article and in the sources, but apparently none of 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). -- Radagast 3 (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]

Delete. Saw this in OC's contribs list, and actually I was first alerted yesterday by someone else. I skimmed through the article and blinked, and thought: is this a confidence trick? Tell me I'm mistaken. Tony (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than a few arbitrary unusual units, this is a system of measurement. And a system that has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is encyclopedic, well referenced, notable, and informative. No valid reason to delete. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:59, 10 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.