Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTFF (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 Delete. The only reason this discussion was necessary is that a persistently disruptive editor (now indefinitely blocked) refused to accept consensus, and edit-warred to keep the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FTFF
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Second nomination for a previous merge and redirect AfD of mine just about 10 years ago. I ran across it in my Contribs. It was reverted in 2013 to its pre-merge splendor, hasn't been edited in any significant way since 10 years ago, and it's referencing things from that era in the present tense. While I'm no longer an admin, I have to say...delete this article. There are more infoboxes than content. RasputinAXP 03:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete perhaps if best although if redirecting is best wanted also, we can lock the article so it will not be changed. SwisterTwister   talk  05:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with nominator. (Though it did make me laugh.. I'd never heard of this before..) ツStacey (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should never have been reverted in the first place. There's not enough for a standalone article. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (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.