Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.A.T.


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

F.A.T.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

F.A.T is presumably a club/group within the Alpha Secondary School. Not notable with respect to its background, current work, and also due to lack of reliable sources. Request delete. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is a CSD A7 in disguise (claiming to be "elite") but it still is one. ;-)   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete csd a7, no claim to notability. ¨¨ victor   falk  20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are there objections to a redirect to FAT? That section of Fat, the disambiguation page, focuses on the acronym. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support a delete+redirect to that section, sure.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't redirect. Then we should have all E.n.g.l.i.s.h  w.o.r.d.s   o.n   W.I.K.I.P.E.D.I.A  a.s   a.c.r.o.n.y.m.s :) '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒  ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But yes, you have a point with respect to the F.A.T acronym already existing on the disambig page of FAT. So I'm ok with a redirect. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.