Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTFF


 * 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 merge and redirect to Macintosh Finder. Despite what Arsians think, WP:V isn't suspended because it came from the Ars forums. There were valid criticisms, and they were merged into the Finder article. I also placed a listing on List of Internet slang terms. I only stepped in because I saw it listed on Ars' mainpage. That says a lot. RasputinAXP  13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FTFF
EDIT: after looking at the Finder page, the criticism addressed in this article belongs there.Fedallah 05:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC) el well here. Tychocat 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Definition of a message board term catchphrase that is not widely used (948 Google hits, mostly blog posts and duplicates). The useful content could be moved to a Criticism section of Macintosh Finder. Dtcdthingy 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: It is absurd to think that an article on 'FTFF' provides any advancement in knowledge. Nobody is really interested in what 'FTFF' is in itself, rather the criticisms which should be in the Macintosh Finder article. Danrees 08:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The FTFF phenomena is significant, but not significant enough to warrent its own article. The article should be merged into the Finder article under criticisms. Kethinov 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I get 10,100 hits for the query cited as having "948 Google hits" above. I also get 40,800 hits in Google for "FTFF".  (Some are unrelated, but not 39,852 of them.)  "FTFF Apple" has 10,800 hits.  "FTFF Mac" has 11,300 hits. -- John Siracusa 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful and redirect. Opabinia regalis 03:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Opabinia regalis has made 1164 edits since May 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain: Wikipedia serves as a valuable tool for looking up unfamiliar acronyms and phrases, to learn what they refer to. FTFF serves as a unifying mantra for a large number of Mac users, some of whom have a great deal of influence in the Mac technical community, and the rallying cry has taken on a life of its own, beyond mere "finder criticism", a term which doesn't begin to capture the emotion evoked by "FTFF".  It is something of an umbrella term, encompassing many areas of concern with the current finder, and so the article could stand to be expanded and clarified.  But there's no reason to remove it altogether --jacobolus (t) 07:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Jacobolus has made 3623 edits since January 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  What you are looking for, for looking up the meanings of words and phrases, is a dictionary.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  The dictionary is over there. Uncle G 09:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. FTFF perhaps deserves an entry at Wiktionary giving the definition alone, but it should be pretty blatantly obvious that there's more to FTFF than just a definition.  It is thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  Keep per User:jacobolus and User:Horbal. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Again:  The tool for looking up the meanings of words and phrases is a dictionary.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  Our articles are about people, places, concepts, events, and things.  Encyclopaedic content about the Macintosh Finder, including a discussion of user requests for its improvement, belongs in Macintosh Finder (broken out in Summary style into a sub-article if it becomes too long).  Having such encyclopaedic content under this title is as absurd as having the encyclopaedia article about Muhammad Ali under the title I am the greatest.  Please see our Naming conventions.  Uncle G 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FTFF is not just a phrase, it is also a concept. It represents the idea that a large group of users of a particular product who have a common criticism of it can coin a phrase/acronym that espouses said criticism in the hopes that their request - however rudely put - will be heard. FTFF is damn near a movement in parts of the Mac community, and is separated from being purely a simplistic word or phrase by this fact (not to mention it is a cry that has remained apparently unheard by Apple for years now, but one day will be addressed, and as such will make up an interesting aspect of the development of the Mac OS X operating system, and maybe the FTFF page will end up with a happy ending). Silic0n 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The thing is Macintosh Finder, and the concept is the set of people's opinions on that thing.  Per our Neutral point of view policy, which is non-negotiable, articles may not promote particular opinions.  Opinions on the Finder range across a spectrum.  Any encyclopaedic reporting of those opinions belongs in the article on the thing that those opinions relate to, Macintosh Finder.  Uncle G 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The entry is not a "reporting of opinion," and it is not advocacy. It's an explanation of the origins and history of a particular well-known term, and the movement it represents.  It's as separate a "thing" as d'oh! is from The_Simpsons. -- Siracusa 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me. There is always some overlap between defining a term and explaining it.  But a dictionary is unlikely to provide the information I'm looking for when I search for "FTFF".  FTFF is a term understood by most members of the Macintosh technical community.  It explains a common sentiment among a large cross section of that community, and has become more than mere criticism of a product.  As others have said, FTFF is something more of a subculture than anything, and is well-enough known to be notable.  This is distinct from mere Finder criticism, and merging it with that page would prevent further explanation of the term. --jacobolus (t) 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge —  definition to List of Internet slang phrases M  a  rtinp23  10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Martinp23 has made 2238 edits since January 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not used often enough even for a merge to the internet slang phrases article. Merge to Macintosh Finder. Recury 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Recury has made 3081 edits since December 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is going to be kept retained, it will need to add verifiable sources. This page has some good guidelines on what Wikipedia considers reliable. If none are available, then we have to delete. Recury 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's a "verifiable source" for something like this? Is the argument really that it doesn't exist or was made up for the benefit of Wikipedia?  I don't understand this objection.  As far as I know, there is no contested information in the entry. John Siracusa 04:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The contested information would be the coinage claims and the claims that this is a big deal among Mac users along with their specific complaints. Read the links I posted for more info on what kind of sources to use, especially the part about using forum posts as sources. They do a better job of explaining all this than I would. Recury 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A source would be a previously published journal article, book, magazine feature article, or suchlike, that discusses user suggestions to improve the Macintosh Finder in depth, and that is written by someone wholly independent of those users. If indeed "Wikipedia [...] is the [...] only [...] place to get a concise explanation of the term.", as stated on the discussion forum linked to above, then this article violates our No original research policy.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance.  It is not here for the purpose of documenting things that are not documented anywhere else.  It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The primary source is a web forum. It just is; I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into Wikipedia's rules about sources.  The secondary sources also include a lot of web forums and blogs.  Most are not "wholly independent of those users" because that's the nature of blogs and forums--people expressing their opinions directly.  The existence of these sources is quite easily demonstrated with a quick web search.  I don't see the point in linking each one to somehow "prove" that FTFF exists as a notable term in the Mac community.  In fact, I don't see this information even being challenged.  Instead, I see a series of "procedural" arguments.  If someone really thinks this entry should be removed because FTFF doesn't exist or is not actually a grassroots, three-year-old, organic movement, then say so plainly, and be prepared to support your contention.  All existing evidence and testimony from those in the Mac community, however "inadequate" it may be according to Wikipedia's guidelines for sources, says otherwise. -- Siracusa 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An encycplopaedia is a catalog of articles dealing with a wide range of human knowledge. Obviously defintions belong in a dictionary, but FTFF is a statement that defines a group (or perhaps a sub-group). As any Sociology dictionary will tell you, a subgroup is often defined by shared opinions and shared slang. FTFF is a page describing the slang that defines a subgroup. The Primary Source that you desire is the group itself, which exists on an internet board. Ethanjohn 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the "group" is not confined to a particular site or board. It spans the entire Mac community. -- John Siracusa 15:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Opabinia regalis. —dima /sb.tk/ 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User DDima has made 4427 edits since December 2005. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I have never seen this before. If you want to look stuff like that go to urban dictionary. Dev920 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Dev920 has made 1571 edits since March 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not having seen something before is hardly a reason to delete it from the Wikipaedia. Ethanjohn 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. Lau  ren  23:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Lawilkin has made 411 edits since July 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So the word "neologism" itself gets a page, but not a purported example of a neologism? —Siracusa 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The concept of neologisms is notable - we're all using recently established words daily. Examples of such can be discussed in the neologism article, and notable neologisms may get an article of their own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So explain why this one is not "notable." -- John Siracusa 11:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain: This may not appear in a generic "jargon file" or "urban dictionary" because it's so specific to a particular subculture. Merging it with another related page has the disadvantage of decreasing the visibility of the information.  As an individual page and search result, it's succinct and to the point.  I often google for "wikipedia mysearchterm" these days because the wikipedia page is usually the most concise and straightforward information source.  If I had to wade through an already large "Finder" page scanning for occurrences of "FTFF," it'd be a less efficient and less pleasant experience.  Retain and cross-link, not merge.  This is the web, not real estate.  There's little cost to a separate page, and many benefits. —Siracusa 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Siracusa has made 17 edits since March 2006, most to this AfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain: "FTFF" is more than an acronym or mere neologism, it encompasses and accurately identifies a particular sub-cultural movement. It might even be considered a sort of rallying cry or pass-mot among Macintosh users. Furthrmore, this entry is clearly more detailed than a dictionary definition and well-written to boot. Keep it. Horbal 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear. This is not a definition and I don't see anything in the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" link cited by Uncle G above that renders this article objectionable. If Where's the beef?, d'oh!, All your base are belong to us and Beam me up, Scotty can have entries, then so should FTFF. The difference is only a matter of degree. But if Wikipedia's goal is comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, this is no reason to eliminate a perfectly valid entry, simply because it may be relatively obscure. As Siracusa said, this is the web, not real estate. Horbal 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Dtcdthingy 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in that guideline that forbids this entry. John Siracusa 04:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that article is poorly written. The list contains some specific examples of how the guideline may be applied, which is confusing, but I was referring to the guideline in general. --Dtcdthingy 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So how does this general guideline apply in this specific case? What is your argument? (beyond your earlier contention that FTFF is "not widely used") -- John Siracusa 05:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I assume you are quoting that guideline for its title? If so, there is nothing "indiscriminate" about this entry. The entry is written well and, IMO, covers a valid topic. Horbal 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Horbal has made 16 edits since October 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ^^ Ironically, most of the reason for my infrequent attempts to contribute is that I hate wasting my time contributing to something only to have self-appointed wiki-police (obviously with more time on their hands) shout it down. Horbal 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, personally, I contributed to a lot of stuff before anyone ever tried to "shout me down", and I think most of these so far have been resolved quite peacefully. I've noted you get nowhere in Wikipedia unless you're always prepared to seek compromises. =) Anyway, I was not trying to shout you down. People with less contributions can, and are encouraged to, leave comments; However, what comes to the retainment/delete headcount, their voices on that matter get less voice. Consider that marker there a "this had better be a good excuse" marker. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also contributed to a lot of stuff before running into a contentious entry (which is when I registered and quickly soured on the experience). Regardless, the notion that edit counts somehow lend more credence to a user's opinion is flawed, at best. Arguments should be considered on their merits, not based on that user's past contributions to other threads. For all I know from seeing the edit counts you're posting on this page, the bulk of your 3000 edits are about your friend's indie rock band. Meanwhile, you're discounting the opinions of people who are essentially experts on this particular topic, simply because they weren't motivated to contribute before. If those opinions are based on a flawed understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, that's one thing. But where they raise a valid question or objection, you should have a better argument in rebuttal than "you're new around here". Horbal 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "If foo, bar, and baz have articles, then so should this" is an old argument that just doesn't fly. We're discussing notability of this article. Feel free to nominate any of those for deletion if you feel they are worthless. But in those cases, their notability can be established easily. Can it, in this case? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the "notability" of this term is well-established. It is practically a term of art in the Mac world.  It has existed for over three years.  It is well-known and often used, and debated among Mac users across the entire net.  As for arguing that this entry should stay because other, similar entries exist and are not contested, that's at least a stronger argument than attempting to diminish the comments of others by "rating" them based on the number of comments they've made to Wikipedia, which wwwwolf has done throughout this page. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But I don't think any of those articles are worthless! I'm merely pointing them out as analogues to this one. They explain an idiom to the uninitiated, much like this entry does. Quite frankly, I don't see the difference, other than degree of popularity and, again, I never realized Wikipedia was a popularity contest. What's the point of that? Horbal 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain: FTFF must stay until they FTFF. Then the issue is moot. Silic0n 03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Silic0n has made 20 edits since November 2005. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I had no idea that your opinion is irrelevant if you spend more time reading Wikipedia than editing it Silic0n 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, your opinion is irrelevant if you can't make a good argument why the article should be kept or deleted. Newbies, and people who do not actively participate in the functioning of Wikipedia, can make their opinions heard here - though I highly doubt that an opinion to retain the article without explaining it in any way in regards to common reasons to retain or delete the article will be given too much weight. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain - per jacobolus. josh buddy, talk 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Joshbuddy has made 2301 edits since September 2005. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Retain - it is useful if a Wikipedia search for a term at least points to the definition expected, especially for technical terms Bombcar 03:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Bombcar has made 91 edits since July 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain - The entry is succinct and informative. It is a useful reference to which Mac users (new and old) can be referred to learn about criticisms of the current Macintosh Finder, and itself refers to further reading. Ravi Pokala 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Ravi_Pokala  has made 4 edits since February 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain -- FTFF is immediately recognizable even to those, like me, who are not Power Mac users. I am just a Mac guy, and I have known what this term has meant for years. -- Unsigned comment by User:69.180.180.174
 * In the edit history for this page, there appears to be some conflict over John being "the most well-known user of this term." Also in the history, John claims "I've used the term exactly once that I can recall (in my Tiger review), and only in reference to its use by others."  I see no proof that John is "the most well-known user" of FTFF and frankly find the banner spanning the top of this page to be 1) intellectually offensive, and 2) a dishonest attempt to sway discussion.  While it could be argued that John's post to ArsTechnica is an equally dishonest attempt to sway discussion, two wrongs do not make a right. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain - This needs to stay because until the Finder is improved, OSX will not be truly complete, and Apple has been lazy, it's symbolic of continued pressure on them to fix it. col_kurtz
 * — Possible single purpose account: Col_kurtz (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He's the originator of the term. Feel free to contact him offline or confirm this for yourself by searching the net for the earliest occurrence of the term. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain or Merge - It's a succinct explanation of technical jargon, condensing years of back-and-forth discussion into a few paragraphs. The term is frequently used, and having it available as a separate article is likely useful.  It would be a shame to lose such a thorough, yet short, explanation.  If you must pull it into the Macintosh entry, that would be acceptable, but perhaps suboptimal.  It's of high interest to a subset of people looking up information about the Macintosh, but not all of them.  Added in a second edit: wwwwolf is playing games by 'rating' users based on their number of contributions, and mostly for people he disagrees with.  Argue on merits, not on users.  Malor
 * User Malor has made 5 edits since January 2006. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not playing games. That is how the AFD process works, established users' opinions are given more weight because they are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies. The opinions of users who came here because of a forum post to vote are given much less weight. Recury 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be a shame to lose such a thorough, yet short, explanation. &mdash; Then please cite sources, where this "technical jargon" and the "movement" that it represents have been documented in detail by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia and independent of the proponents of the "movement", to demonstrate that this is not original research. The article cites no sources at all, currently.  Uncle G 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourced criticism on Finder and comments on users' frustration might be welcome in Macintosh Finder article. As the article stands now, it looks, sounds, and smells like a political/activisim tool to pressure Apple, which is echoed in above comments too ("Merging it with another related page has the disadvantage of decreasing the visibility of the information", "FTFF must stay until they FTFF. Then the issue is moot"). Which is useless, of course, I'm sure Apple can't be pressured just with a random Wikipedia article and blog/message board comments that are harshly critical to them. =/ We should therefore consider this in relation to some other political/activist slogans. This isn't quite up there in historical significance with "read my lips..." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Wwwwolf has made 3248 edits since May 2004. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The entry is explanatory and informative. It is not advocacy.  The visibility that I cited aids people who want to know what it means and learn the history behind it.  Like any topic where there are strong feelings, there will be those who want to use the entry for advocacy.  That can be (and has been) handled as usual, with edits to entry itself that maintain its neutrality.  The potential for conflict in no way disqualifies the topic as a valid Wikipedia page. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wwwwolf; protologism and astroturfing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia describes "astroturfing" as "formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior." FTFF had entirely informal origins.  The proliferation off FTFF was not caused by one person or an organized cabal.  It was hard to even track down the person who originally coined the term.  FTFF did not even appear in a "formal" article on the site whose forums spawned it until over two years after it was coined.  It is an actual grassroots phenomenon, not something posing as one. -- John Siracusa 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain This is, indeed, a well known criticism of Mac OS X. It would be a shame to see it deleted from the Wiki. -- User:87.3.203.66
 * Keep It's apple sub-culture, but it's absolutely out there and it's a valid criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G3pro (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 August 2006  (UTC)
 * Retain: Is Wikipedia a repository of knowledge or not? If terms such as FTFF don't belong in an encyclopedia, could someone explain why phrases like All your base are belong to us (A.K.A AYBABTU) are still here?  The fact is that there are countless useful terms that originated in message boards which can be readily found in Wikipedia.  Why is this one in particular not appropriate? Is it because some of you were not familiar with it?  If that's the case, all the more reason to retain it :-) GhostInTheShell
 * User GhostInTheShell has made 8 edits since July 2005. Sertrel 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added edit counts for the rest of the people who participated in discussion since some people assumed I was adding those in bad faith. I didn't add them to some, mostly because the edit counter kept jamming. I might, later. The AfD will run for a while and this is a matter that'll probably be of interest to the closing admin. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain: This is an important "school" of thought and debate amongst Mac users. The FTFF meme is a recurring and broad opinion held by many high-profile Internet commentators on the Mac. Yes, it's an acronym common on many Mac-centric message boards, but its usage goes far beyond that. Kirkland 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Finder article per Opabinia regalis. Debuskjt 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Finder and Internet slang phrases. I do recall "Fuck the fucking fuckers" used in movies, and so that meaning should be preserved in Internet slang phrases, separate from "Fix the Fucking Finder". Sertrel 18:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - As a stand alone article it mistakes Wikipedia for a dictionary, and has no greater cultural context outside the context of a discussion of the perceived faults some see in the Macintosh Finder (contrast with widespread memes like All You Base, or Where's the Beef). Perhaps if we start seeing FTFF spray-painted on walls or bandied about by politicians to score points against rivals this will change, but until then it merits no more than a mention in the Finder page, if that. Senjutsu 22:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User Senjutsu has made 3 edits since January 2005. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain: This concept is as encycalpedaic as many other ones that are maintained in Wikipedia. I don't see how it's particularly less worthy from being a movement among Mac users than many of the social or political concepts that Wikipedia has entries on, no matter how obscure. Kd5mdk 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain or Merge per jacobolus. Retain is preferrable, as this article is the first Google hit for the term. MrVacBob 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Gut and rewrite. This article has a long way to go, and needs to be stripped of all POV content - which is, unfortunately, the vast majority of it. However, as a neologism, it's a very common one in the arstechnica community, and has received sufficient recognition outside of it to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 05:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to Redirect and merge to Macintosh Finder. This is far too specific for its own article, fails to cite sources, and suffers from the aforementioned problems. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge: While a widely held criticism of OS X, and one that I am personally familiar with, the topic itself is too narrow to merit its own article. If OS X or its various sub-articles on the separate versions of OS X have 'criticism' sections (and the sub-articles do) - this belongs there.  I recommend including this information in the Mac OS X v.10.0 article, as the original problem dates from the initial release of OS X and pervades to this day.
 * NOTE For all those decrying why wwwolf is posting edit counts may have missed this Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 18:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I can respect the feelings that some of these anons have completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites. It isn't about if a site or term has a huge following or not.  It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules.  Let me help out a bit so you understand.  The Google searchs are really only used to back up a statement, not as a stand-alone basis for a vote though this is abused sometimes.  No, the real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there are no sources to back up the claims of the author(s).  It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's notability with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet WP:V, some sections of WP:OR, does not follow the guideline of WP:CITE or WP:RS. The biggest violation beyond not citing reliable sources, is neologism. The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate  and The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use..  Following this, Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term..  So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. More over  Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. So when the time comes that this term does have citations that rely on books and papers that have articles/sections about the term, then the article can be recreate. As far as personal thoughts, An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.  I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 19:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FTFF is not original research. It was in use for a significant period of time before this Wikipedia article existed.  There are a large number of blogs and other sources which reference the term.  You may say that these are not reliable, but this is a silly argument; different areas of human thought are discussed different fora: many scientific terms are not discussed by major international newspapers, but are nonetheless notable, because they are used in scientific publications.  Recently, a Pokemon character was Wikipedia's featured article.  This one minor character almost assuredly has no books or papers written about it, or major news outlets explaining its various statistics; Wikipedia's article itself is the most complete and comprehensive source about the subject, synthesizing information from many other sources.  All of which is to say, Wiki is not Paper.  If this article is useful to Wikipedians, and helps them to understand a term and a movement in the Macintosh technical community, then the article should stay. --jacobolus (t) 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While the Bulbasaur article is a large synthesis of information, it does not put forward any position about the Pokemon, and all of the facts presented are thoroughly documented with citations from the anime, major magazines, gaming guides, well-known gaming websites, books, comics, etc. The two are not comparable. That page features over 33 separate, verifiable references. What information in the FTFF article is verifiable fact? The part with the subjective list of gripes or the part that speculates about Apple's future plans for the Finder? Debuskjt 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You completely miss my point, which is not that Bulbosaur doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia. Rather, its sources are things like the "pokemon yellow walkthrough", some random fansite which explains to newbies how to play the pokemon games.  This type of Pokemon information cannot be learned from Newsweek, The New York Times, or Science, because those publications are not in the business of providing guides to pokemon video game players.  Instead, the information comes from the source, the pokemon walkthroughs.  That does not render such information useless, however, and the case here is similar: information about FTFF comes from blogs and technical websites, rather than from the so-called "reliable" sources Brian referred to in the parent post.  This is perfectly legitimate as far as I'm concerned, even though Ars Technica isn't peer-reviewed. --jacobolus (t) 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK Let's set the record straight. A decision was made to find the most rediculous, far-fetched article that still had some 'notability' tie in and use it as a flag to wave and say "Look, this one doesn't meet all the requirements as you have put them so this article shouldn't need it either". The problem with that arguement is...you are right!  That article most likely violates the rules and should ALSO be in AfD! The thing that quite a few of theses AfD arguements boil down to is editors that understand the process and that not everything follows the rules, and when those articles are caught, they are cleaned up or deleted...and editors that do not understand the process and flag wave other articles that are in volation of the rules. (This is not a comment about Jacobolus, but a comment on the history of AfD's)  We all know there are articles out there that deserve AfDs...all an editor has to do is look at the AfD logs day by day to see this. We know that Wikipedia is a work in process. That doesn't make it ok for articles to disregard the rules.  This arguement is an end run on the rules, trying to explain why the article shouldn't have to follow them, which isn't going to win the discussion.  Blogs and technical websites are not acceptable per Wikipedia's process. If anyone believes this to be wrong, then by all means fight the rules in place, but All articles must follow WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, and no wikipedia rules or consensus by editors can change this. Instead of providing weak arguements about other articles' failings (which will most likely be AfD'd now that you mentioned them) provide arguements on how this article meets all the rules I have stated in that long post. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your arguments except for the Bulbasaur part. Please read Debuskgt comment as to why Bulbasaur cannot be compared to this article.  Dionyseus 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * jacobolus, you are knowingly misconstruing another article to bait Brian into unwittingly making an argument about Wiki policy that isn't true. Wiki policy specifically excludes blogs (except for special circumstances) as verifiable sources. Deal with it. Also, arguing that another, unrelated article, has problematic sources doesn't fix the inherent issues in the FTFF article. For instance, Wiki policy on content forking. And whether you want to hear it or not, FTFF isn't a social movement of the masses. It is a blanket neologism to criticize the Finder. The articles inherent problems are peripheral to the fact that the very idea of the stand alone article breaking with Wiki policy on several points, including criticism, neologisms, and NPOV. Debuskjt 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I say Merge. The term itself is simply defined, and documentation of the general discontent with the Finder belongs under the Finder's heading. To properly document the discontent with the Finder in this article would require duplication of information anyway.--ryos 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  per Brian, except for the Bulbasaur part. Dionyseus 05:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  per Brian. I'd include the Bulbasaur part, but humor clearly doesn't trav
 * 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.