Deletion of Friedman (unit) (2nd nomination)

Comment: I'm taking a break from most article editing so I haven't been part of the back-and-forth on this. To start with, |it's an article I would like to have, but I've been troubled by the lack of reliable sources. Still, if we can accept highly notable webzines like ''Huffington Post'' as a source, then we can establish some marginal notability. I haven't seen new sources appearing that would help make that decision cleaner, so I still lean toward merge/redirect. The table, however, has ''got to go'', unless it is going to be a table of predictions that have been ''explicitly'' called a "Friedman" by Atrios or anyone else. By itself it does nothing to establish notability of the term, since most of the sources are simply predictions about the Iraq war that don't mention the meta-label Atrios and some allies have given to such predictions. Repeat, they do not establish the notability of the term. Removing them from the article is not sabotage as they should never have been considered proof of notability in the first place. Keeping them in the article is sanctioning |synthesis and original research. I have always urged editors who hoped to use the article to document/chart/track these predictions to move that activity to another website where it is acceptable. On Wikipedia, it is not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:SYN)

Comment: This article does not come close to failing . The submission says that "the term has been mentioned, briefly, in a handful of reliable sources, but that specifically does NOT establish notability per ." This is simply not true. In fact,  says that "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources|secondary sources such as books and papers ''about'' the term &mdash; not books and papers ''that use'' the term." The article specifically cites several reliable secondary sources that satisfy that requirement exactly, including the Washington Post, Editor & Publisher, and the Huffington Post. If anything, the article as it stands now is a pretty good example of an article that ''does'' satisfy both pillars of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: This article is a valued resource for those who come across the use of the term.  It is an article "about the concept that the title denotes" in accord with .  Also, according to that guideline, "note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length."  Croctotheface has proposed the article for merge, and now twice has nominated for deletion - all in good faith, of course.  I hope that when this latest attempt is rebuffed, he will finally be content that the article will stay, and will work instead to improve the article, as it is is in accord with both the spirit and practice of Wikipedia principles.  Notability has been established through thousands of mentions on blogs and several mentions in the print Washington Post and Editor & Publisher.  One wonders if, in this technological age, whether we truly want to establish the idea that something must be printed on tree material to appear on a wholly online source ("let alone significant one such as a book").  The absurdity of this position is rather startling, and I would submit against the founding principles of Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)