Talk:UTFSF

This page was proposed for deletion by Cocobb8 (talk · contribs) on 7 February 2024.

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 20 January 2024. The result of the discussion was Delete or Retarget where explicitly suggested. Any "weak" deletes are closed as No Consensus so they may be looked again in a future nomination.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UTFSF - and you'll see that this acronym, however rude, has its use in modern language. Ironic, isn't it? Rklawton 05:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with sentiment of the phrase "UTFSF," but it only gets 1450 google hits, which, to me, even as an inclusionist, makes it non-notable. However, perhaps I should have utfsf before posting it as straight off vandalism. Autopilots 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought: perhaps it should be merged into, and redirect to RTFM Autopilots 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTFSF is more specific to computer information systems, whereas RTFM applies also to hard copy. However, I wouldn't oppose a merger. Rklawton 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability: the lack of Google hits concerned me as well. However, the international scope of these hits surprised me. For an English language phrase, UTFSF has been used in this context in a lot of languages. Rklawton 05:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why these two acronyms should be merged - they have different meanings so they should have separate articles. Simple. --212.202.201.32 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. — Omegatron 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.