Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedman Unit

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 no consensus. A merge discussion wouldn't be amiss but there's no consensus for a merge here. Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman Unit

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

A barely-noteworthy neologism that's better suited for Wiktionary than here. Has shown no long term usage, and barely no interest outside of left wing blogs. The exception to this rule is that it was considered one of the honorable mentions in a now-defunct Huffington Post blog regarding media phrases, but this is not substantial enough to really constitute notability. Previous closures were no consensus, we seem to be better about sourcing now than we were then. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Previous AfDs for this topic were under a different article title. --Finngall ^talk 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least three books (So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits-- and the President-- Failed on Iraq, Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats, Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won the War in Iraq: The Experts Speak) contain relatively lengthy and detailed sections about the term (not just usages) and "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Friedman. "Barely notable" seems about right. At heart, this is some political invective against Thomas Friedman - not that different from "Tricky Dick" or "Slick Willie", or, even more relevantly, "You forgot Poland". All of those are redirects or disambig links back to the larger topic, which makes sense since the amount of information that could legitimately be said about any of them, as with "Friedman Unit", could fit comfortably into about three sentences. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Friedman per Korny O'Near. Notability is not temporary, but neither is it inherited. This seems to be a once-notable critique of Friedman, occasionally extended to other political writers/speakers. Cnilep (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While merging to Thomas Friedman is theoretically possible, it would surely be eliminated over time as an "attack" or something. Though not as notable as Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I believe its a historically relevant neologism in regards to the Iraq War.[1][2]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:42, 24 July 2014 (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.