Deletion of Friedman (unit)

Comment: if this term really is "widely-used in print media," where are the |reliable sources demonstrating such? None of the sources cited mention the "friedman" at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT)

Comment: per nom. I have done several  efforts on behalf of neologisms, and some of those resulted in a keep or no consensus result; obviously, I'm liberally inclusionist. In this case I looked around and saw little that could be done, as much as . I pushed and prodded in the merge discussion for reliable sources and the elimination of original research, and there was some improvement -- but ultimately there are only marginally reliable sources even using the term at all, such as The Huffington Post. Now, I could defend a list of citations of "in the next ''N'' months" predictions '''if and only if''' they were accompanied by a citation of a reliable source calling that prediction a "Friedman" (and I personally would accept Atrios for these, as this is a subarticle on his term, as long as notability had been established otherwise). I am pretty sure that a very brief such list could be extracted for illustration purposes in the Atrios article. But he hasn't done that for all of the examples cited; the list seems to be merely finding as many "in the next N months" citations as possible, which only really illustrates what Atrios is originally complaining about, i.e. the prevalence of such predictions. So most of the list would have to go even if notability were established, because it's synthesis. All that said, I have urged that the authors of the article give it a more appropriate home such as Demopedia or Dkosopedia, where the predictions may be compiled under more hospitable inclusion policies. I would indeed like it if this term were a notable neologism, but as it stands, I don't think it passes muster
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: per ,  and . This is an absurd example of OR. Not one of the cited references in the sprawling "examples" section actually uses the term "friedman unit". Blogs and their ilk are not generally |reliable sources; certainly not to establish currency of a neologism. This article belongs in Disinfopedia or dKosopedia, if anywhere. By the way, this article and its impending deletion has been commented on by Atrioshttp://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_03_11_atrios_archive.html#117416333951548010; expect some puppetry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:RS)