Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTDS - global de-duplication

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. Tone 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FTDS - global de-duplication

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is unclear what this article is actually about, as the FTDS acronym was not explained by the creator of the article. The article makes no attempt to explain itself other than direction to another article, and a see also- Cryptographic Hash Function. There is some musing in the talk page as to what the FTDS of the title actually stands for, and the author was asked to clarify on their talk page, but never did. JohnmgKing (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created, templated, and left. If there is actually sources on whatever global de-duplication is, then it might be added to fault tolerance if FTDS stands for Fault-Tolerant Distributed System or Failure Tolerant Disk System as suggested on the article talk page. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article creator wrote an unsourced two-sentence article (as his first edit to Wikipedia), failed to explain its topic clearly, and has not edited Wikipedia at any time in the 4 1/2 years since then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I believe that this should have used a proposed deletion instead so that the user could pick up on it in the future if they ever came back. I was going to argue to incubate to give them an extra six months, but given that this was years ago, it is only a single sentence, and the user doesn't seem likely to return, nothing would be lost. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.