Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedman (unit) (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Dhartung, 08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ILIKEIT||WP:SYN (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)