Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCoTR


 * 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) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FCoTR

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. As the article states, it is new and "information is sparse at this time". It may get significant one day but as of now it is still non-notable. The blog doesn't count as a reliable source. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Contested prod. It is a one day-old article on a brand new specification. Yes, information is sparse, but there is already a draft spec available for 802.5qZ. That's really all you have to read to see exactly how real this is.  There is also this article with an in-depth analysis and a Wikibon page about an upcoming peer incite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.93.60 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)  — 198.134.93.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak delete There are some sources from where it was proposed, but nothing else yet. Seems likely to be notable shortly, but... Hobit (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, entry asserts its own lack of notability. And who the hell uses token ring anymore? Hairhorn (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy and let the author sort out the sources and put them in the article before putting it back into mainspace. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, FCoTR (and it's related blogs and web sites) is a tech parody and does not belong here. Or is there is a special category for tech humor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.138.203.130 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing to make an article out of here.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, sourced only to blogs. I don't have the techie expertise to know if it is humor or serious, but either way it does not have the required sourcing to remain on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 22 July 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.