Deletion of FTFF

Comment: 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 , some sections of , does not follow the guideline of  or . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:ENC||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:NEO||WP:RS||WP:OR)