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 to delete. This was a tough one to close. A significant portion of the "keep" comments made did not cite policy, and seemed to border on WP:ILIKEIT. However, even discounting these, I couldn't find consensus to delete; WP:NEO is a guideline, and I don't feel comfortable asserting WP:IAR to apply it to this article when I couldn't find consensus to delete in the first place. This close places no prejudice against renominations of the article, and I strongly caution User:Davidhc to remain civil, constructive, and non-argumentative in future AfD debates. Badgering editors with views different than your own with incivil commentary is not acceptable. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Friedman (unit) 1.1 Arbitrary section break 1.2 Second arbitrary section break 1.3 Arguments for deletion 1.4 Consensus for Keep?? No consensus for keep 2 3RR

[edit] Friedman (unit)

Friedman (unit) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable, neologism, full of OR, does not cite sources other than blogs, all relevant content about the term is at Atrios already. Croctotheface 07:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:V and WP:NOR. 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 Atrios^[1]; expect some puppetry. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this neologism catches on...Meanwhile we can transwiki the term and redirect to Atrios.--Tikiwont 13:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Kaustuv. The article itself seems to give two different definitions for a Friedman unit, so it may not even be eligible for transwiki-ing. Redirect to Atrios after deletion. The "examples" section is nothing short of WP:SYN. Risker 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete - a first summary This article should not be deleted. Many of the points below have been drawn from the previous debate on whether or not to Merge the article. The result of that debate was for the article not to be merged.
  • Reliable sources: Apart from the secondary debate over whether millions of people reading hundreds of blogs that repeatedly use the term Friedman Unit count as a reliable source, the term has appeared in print media as referenced in the article. If you have problems with the print media that the term has appeared in, then please do not just say "that doesn't count" or "that's not a reliable source." You will need to explain why those specific publications are not reliable in the context of the wikipedia guidelines.
  • Neologism: The neologism rule is in place to keep people from using Wikipedia to coin a term. In the case of the Friedman Unit, the term is already widely used without the help of this article. While the google test does not assure notability of a term, the many and varied hit results for the Friedman Unit show that it is widely used by millions of people. If you no not think that millions of blog readers do not count as the wide use of a term, then please explain why they do not count.
  • Wikipedia is not a print medium: It is a founding principle of Wikipedia that is has space for entries that would not otherwise make it into a print encyclopedia. Because if this rule, it is important to remember that if an article is in doubt, it is better to err on the side of caution and keep the article rather than delete it. If you think that Wikipedia does not have space for this article, then please explain with evidence.
  • I don't like it: While the "I like it" argument is not a good reason for keeping an article, it is also equally important to remember that "I don't like it" is not a good reason for deleting it. Editors on both sides need to ask themselves this question before they make their arguments so that they do not do a disservice to the Wikipedia community by letting their subjective opinions overshadow their reason.
• For these and many other reasons that I am sure other people will list, this article should be kept. Davidhc 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, millions of people use this term? Please provide a reliable source for this. Several political bloggers have used it, although notably the person for whom it is named does not. I can't see any comments above that use the "I don't like it" argument. As to the WP:NEO argument, given that search results for just about any term in Wikipedia will show Wikipedia in the top 5 results, the fact of an article here pretty well guarantees that Wikipedia has an effect on the popularity of a term (which one could term the "observation affects the outcome of an experiment" argument). There have been other recent examples where news sources and blogs have taken their information about current events right from the Wikipedia articles in development at that time. The term was coined by Atrios and deserves a place in the article about him. There is no consistent definition or usage of the term at this point. Until that stabilizes, the article should be deleted with a redirect to Atrios. The examples have to go regardless of whether or not the article is deleted. Risker 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • a) What print source are you talking about? The only source I saw brought up on the discussion page was a Huffington Post article that spent a total of three sentences discussing the term. I heard tell of a single mention in Editor and Publisher that is inaccessible to most readers, including myself.
  • b) From WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." So far, we just have three sentences from HuffPo. Blogs, like it are not, are not considered reliable sources on WP.
  • c) I think you're misstating WP:PAPER. Nobody is arguing that we should delete this article because it would not show up in Britannica, or anything to that effect. WP:PAPER does not justify the inclusion of articles that are poorly sourced or cover topics that are not significant enough. Those are the points of contention here, not whether this article would be included in a paper encyclopedia.
  • d) I don't see anyone using the "I don't like it" argument here, and I don't expect anyone will, so I'm not sure what you're saying. If you want my subjective opinion on the term, I'm a fan of Atrios and think the term is funny and illustrative. However, objectively, it does not come close to meeting the requirements necessary to have an independent article on Wikipedia. Croctotheface 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "hundreds of blogs that repeatedly use the term" is the form of argument that is required at Wiktionary, because it is an argument about whether a word is in use. It is irrelevant to Wikipedia, because it doesn't demonstrate the existences of reliable sources that document a subject. Counting Google hits is not research. To demonstrate that reliable sources exist, you have to cite sources that document (not use — document) this purported unit. You have to show, with cited sources, that this unit has been researched and documented outside of Wikipedia, in accordance with our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Excluding the sources that cite this Wikipedia article itself as their source, and the unreliable sources such as pseudonymous postings on discussion fora, there is not a single source in this article that documents this purported unit. There's only one source that even documents the fact that one person has made the same prediction repeatedly, something that is incorrectly presented when presented in an article on a unit of measurement that has not actually been documented anywhere. Uncle G 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; the article is full of citations, and not all of them are blogs; apparently, this term has indeed gained some currency in the print media. I can't see any policy this violates. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What does "gained some currency" mean? I mean, the article itself says something to that effect, but it seems to be incorrect. If anything, the section that lists publications that have used the term is misleading, as it cites blogs (say, from the Washington Monthly) but gives the impression that the term has appeared in print edition of the magazine. Croctotheface 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy, given that it takes roughly thirty quotations from different people talking about things that may happen months into the future and synthesizes from them the novel conclusion that there is a unit of measurement. Uncle G 18:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: 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. Krimpet (talk/review) 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See fourth paragraph. Bill Oaf 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors and Publishers Just to give one example of a secondary source: Along with the listing on the main page for the Friedman Unit, there is in individual entry in discussion page on the use of the term in an article in the print edition of Editors and Publishers. This article, you can read an excerpt included in the discussion, acknowledges that the term is widely used and is accurate in its description. This is all that is needed to verify the term Friedman Unit and keep this entry. The whole point of a secondary source is to find a reliable source (in this case a print article that was written by professional journalists and approved by professional editors) that documents the use of the term. The purpose of a secondary source is to provide documentation of existence, not act as proof of existence in itself. If you have any proof that the Editors and Publishers is not a professional print media, or that the article is a hoax, then please I would like to see it. Also, please read the article and the article's comments page before you post here and vaguely claim that reliable sources do not exist, because both the article and the discussion reliable secondary sources clearly. Davidhc 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I have done several WP:HEY 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 WP:ILIKEIT. 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. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There's no denying the term's indebtedness to Atrios; however, the phrase has currency beyond Eschaton (one of the twenty most influential publications in the U.S., in my opinion) & beyond the blogosphere in general--I've heard it in conversation. It's a succinct critique of U.S. policy in Iraq and, more pointedly, of the U.S. media's failure to question authority. Billbrock 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, there are plenty of references in the opening paragraphs that establish this term has expanded beyond Atrios' blog - even into "mainstream". The specific political motivation in using it aside, it does seem to have become widespread in certain significant circles. If the big list of examples in the later part of the article is too ORish or otherwise unweildy it can be trimmed or removed, but that's a content and cleanup issue rather than an AfD one. Bryan Derksen 01:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I came upon this article and found it to be useful; I have seen the term in a number of places and was pleased to see that Wikipedia had an article on the emerging meme. Along with others, I added some sources demonstrating its use in various mainstream publications. Bill Oaf 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the supporting arguments previously mentioned. In response to the Editors and Publishers argument, I'd like to point out that the article merely mentions in passing that certain bloggers use the Friedman Unit. The term appears once in the entire text, while the article itself is devoted to a different subject. However, notablility requires the topic being the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works. This neologism has never been discussed in any level of detail by a reliable source, let alone being the subject of one. — Kelw (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for acknowledging that the term has been referenced in a reliable print media. Davidhc 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Dhartung claims to "like it," then goes on to ignore all the sound arguments for keeping it as Editors hashed out over the past month in the Talk page. (I just lurked on there as I assumed those who favored merger or deletion were just a bunch of trouble-makers whose suggestions would not be taken seriously.) Many who favor deletion ignore the clear acceptance of web sources in the OR guidelines. Dhartung asserts, with no basis in fact, that HuffingtonPost is a "marginally reliable source," when (as the Talk pages make clear) it is written by well-known and highly-regarded journalists -- repeated below. He dismissively makes passing reference to "even using the term at all, such as The Huffington Post" -- while failing to mention that the phrase "Friedman Unit" won HuffPo's award for "best new phrase of 2006! That's much more than "using the term at all"! And it casts doubt on Dhartung's objectivity and good faith in this discussion.

Here is just one of the many sound arguments on the FU talk page, all of which apparently need to be copied into here if critics are not willing to engage in good faith discussion:

• The original-research guidelines state: "citing book, print, or reliable web resources [sic] demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion." So web resources are explicitly allowed...
• Huffington Post is a reliable web resource. It is: (i) widely read (online outranking US News & World Report, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, Washington Times, over the past year). (ii) Its feature-story writers include some of the most notable names in American politics. Well-known journalists among its blog-writers alone[2] include [starting alphabetically with "A"]: Chris Ahearn (President of Reuters!!), Mary Ann Akers (columnist for DC insiders' magazine Roll Call), Charles Alexander (23 years writing for Time Magazine), Roger Alford (law professor at Pepperdine University), Graham Allison (Harvard University professor, former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for 12 years, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, author of six books in political science and policy), Jonathan Alter (senior editor and colunist at Newsweek), Eric Alterman (prolific writer and commentator), Tom Andrews (former US Congressman from Maine), George Archibald (over 20 years writing for the Washington Times), etc. -- those are a few examples just from the list of last-names beginning with "A"! Huffington Post is not just some random blog populated by anyone who can type. (iii) The lead author on the Huffington Post article[3] that declared Friedman Unit to be the "best new phrase of 2006," Rachel Sklar, is widely published in: The New York Times, The New York Post, The Village Voice, Glamour, New York Magazine, The Financial Times and numerous other publications, and is a frequent guest on MSNBC's Scarborough Country TV show.[4] In short, Huffington Post clearly fits the criteria for a "reliable web resource" which "demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion," as specified in the Wikipedia guideline on no original research. And HuffPost declared "Friedman Unit" to be the best new phrase of 2006.

Again, that's just one of many dozens of sound arguments for keeping this article, despite any doubts raised on first-glance. Eugene Banks 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Huffington Post may be a reliable source. However, the article that mentioned the term was about another subject and spent a total of three sentences on the term. As others have noted, that is not sufficient to establish that a neologism should have an article on Wikipedia. Croctotheface 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also, just to clarify, everything that is "not original reserach" does not automaticlaly become notable. In order for a subject to have its own article, it must be notable. As such, your quote from WP:NOR deals with whether or not text can be included within an article, not whether a topic can have its own Wikipedia article. The standard at WP:N, as others have mentioned, is being "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works". I don't see a single published work, let alone a "substantial' or "non-trivial" one, of which the Friedman unit is the subject. It was mentioned in a trivial way (3 sentences) in a Huffington Post article. It was not the subject of that article by a long shot. It was apparently mentioned in passing in an Editor and Publisher article. Again, it was not the subject of that article. Where's the notability here? Croctotheface 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the best protocol, should all discussion on this be placed here (copied here -- as only a small portion of the anti-delete arguments have been so far), or left on the article's Talk page? I'm increasingly suspecting that the arguments for deletion are a disguised form of POV, most likely relating to the highly contentious Iraq war. E.g.:

• Do not delete. I spent only 5 minutes googling this term, and what do I find: an interview on CNN TV, by Howard Kurtz no less, in which Tom Friedman himself is asked about his repeated use of the "six month" time-frame. No mention of Atrios. It is such a common notion that Kurtz doesn't even feel the need to name his source. He doesn't use the exact two words "Friedman" and "Unit", but there is no question what he is referring to: "you [Tom Friedman] were chided recently for writing several times in different occasions 'the next six months are crucial in Iraq,' 'the next six months.'" This article never should have been flagged in the first place. Eugene Banks 09:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Generally, whenever someone uses an "it must be" type of construction, it's because he or she believes something but recognizes that the sources don't actually support it. In this case, you're arguing that "there is no question" over what Kurtz is referring to, but if there were, why doesn't he mention it? Why do you need to hang your hat on the rather dubious notion that this term is SO notable that nobody even needs to use it? We're dealing with a neologism that currently has its own article, not a question of whether Friedman was criticized in a notable way over his repeated use of "the next six months" in relation to Iraq. I would agree that in the latter case that it is completely legitimate to mention that Friedman has been criticized. That could go, say, here: Thomas Friedman#Friedman Unit. However, the fact that a subject meets the threshold of verifiability required to be mentioned WITHIN articles is not the same as achieving notability through multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources being "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works" per WP:N. Without notability, the term can't have its own article. Croctotheface 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The main article on the Friedman Unit cites at least three print publications which cover the term in their articles. This meets the guideline of "multiple non-trivial published works." If you disagree, then please explain how these three publications do not meet the "non-trivial" standard. Davidhc 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could you help me by pointing them out here? All the publications I see cited in the paragraph I assume you're talking about mentioned the "unit" in their blogs, except for E&P. Croctotheface 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also note that the term must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Even if The American Prospect or Washington Monthly mentioned the term in the print edition of their publications, and not merely their blogs, "mentioned in" or "used in" do not meet the standard of notability that I quoted. Croctotheface 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let's see. An interview of Friedman. Lots of talk about "six months." No use of the term "Friedman unit." If I had seen that interview, would I have any reason to think that "six months" would equal "Friedman unit" or vice versa? If the term was not used in the interview, then the interview cannot in any way be used as an example of the term. Risker 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple non-trivial sources There seems to be a lot of confusion over examples that people bring up in discussion and the examples that are in the article. (If you have good examples of the use of the term, please add them to the article.) The sources currently cited in the article are:

• Editor & Publisher
• The American Prospect
• Think Progress (the official online publication of the Center for American Progress),
• Daily Kos
• Washington Monthly
• Huffington Post

If you want to delete this article, then you are going to have to prove why ALL of these sources do not meet the non-trivial guidelines (I would say most of them are way above the criteria for non-trivial). You can not just go on slamming the Huffington Post or examples that are not in the main article and then say there is no notability. Please stick to the text. Davidhc 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed E&P and HuffPo at length already, so I won't repeat those arguments again. Daily Kos is a blog. The American Prospect citation is from TAPPED, the publication's blog. The Washington Monthly citation is from Kevin Drum's blog, which is published on the WM's website. In your last comment, you said that "three print publications...cover the term in their articles". In fact, this coverage is from blogs, which is not the same thing, per WP:Reliable sources. Besides that, these blogs just use the term, which is enough to satisfy inclusion in Wiktionary, but not here. You have yet to show that the "Friedman unit" is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Croctotheface 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that the term Friedman Unit is covered in all of the sources listed above. Please also note, that as explained above in the discussion, the wikipedia guidelines do not exclude blogs. So please explain to me why this article is up for deletion? Davidhc 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Per official Wikipedia policy WP:A, blogs are self-published and therefore cannot be reliable sources. I'm not sure which Wikipedia guideline you are referring to. — Kelw (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility is valued here, first of all. Second, "covered in X sources" does not establish notability. As I've said more than once now, WP:N calls for a topic to be "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works" for it to meet the threshold of notability required for it to have an article. I have not seen a single published work that the "Friedman unit" is the subject of. I've seen it used in a couple of blog posts, and maybe mentioned in passing here or there, but that's it. Regarding blogs, I suggest you reread WP:RS. Blogs written by experts whose blogs cover their area of expertise can occasionally be used as sources for content, subject to very specific restrictions, per WP:SPS. Kevin Drum's blog, for instance, may have a sufficient pedigree to source content, though even something like that could very likely lead to disputes. However, something can be sufficient to source content within articles and still fall well short of establishing notability required for a topic to have its own article. I'd recommend rereading all the policies and guidelines at issue here if you're still a bit unclear about the difference. Croctotheface 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete, do not merge, do not blank. Croc, firstly, you seem to be engaging in the following style of argumentation: You make argument X. Opponents make arguments A, B, and C. You then conclude "We've already discussed X," trying to get the last word while ignoring the previous discussion. (And if X is rebutted, you then add argument Y.) WP:Reliable Sources concludes: "This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." This has been done, with Friedman unit, many times over. Additional sources keep being added -- I just added CNN (see above). The fact that E&P has an article with FU as a subject is really all a WP article needs as proof of reliable sourcing and non-original research. (Perhaps a definition of "subject" is in order? Wiktionary: "Subject: 1. In a clause: the word or word group [usually a noun phrase] that is dealt with.") You keep raising the bar on this article as to what a reliable source must be. (Now it seems you're saying it must be the only subject of an article? That's ridiculous. Or perhaps only appearing in a mass-circulation magazine? But E&P is far more notable and credible than e.g. Time Magazine. Each time you ignore new evidence and previous arguments I suspect you are surreptitiously engaging in POV.) The fact that HuffingtonPost is a highly credible online source (whose authors and editorial process are better than most print outlets) also stands alone as sufficient sourcing. (Perhaps we should examine the credibility of journalists and editorial process in other sources frequently used on Wikipedia; the Washington Times comes to mind immediately.) On a whim I just Googled and discovered that the FU concept has been picked up in French, as well, e.g. "Ca vaut les six mois de Friedman pour un dénouement en Irak." The fact that there are many sources for Friedman Unit (including the others cited elsewhere, Kevin Drum, CNN, Washington Monthly, etc.) casts doubt on your willingness to engage in reasonable discussion.

Secondly, part of the confusion may be a philosophical difference. What is important is the Platonic ideal of the concept, the abstraction. Ideas are more important than physical manifestations of things. So what is important about "Friedman unit" is the concept (including the never-ending series of six-month projections about war that are forgotten as the period ends, and the widespread uses of this concept which needs to be demonstrated by examples). Thus, the fact that Kurtz on CNN did not use the 10 letters (a, d, e, f, i, m, n, r, t, and u) rearranged to spell "Friedman Unit" is truly not important. There is no doubt that Kurtz, interviewing Friedman about the latter's repeated use of a never-ending six-month horizon in regards to the Iraq war, is discussing this concept. Critics of this page may be more Aristotelian in outlook, but there is room on Wikipedia for articles of both types, and measuring up to one approach or the other is not grounds for deletion, merging, or blanking. Being overly concerned with minutiae and detail about guidelines is not helpful for Wikipedians, especially when combined with a tone that is perceived as condescending, even if it is not being used as a cloak for POV. Eugene Banks 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To your second point: what is important, per WP:NEO, is very much the "abstraction", in this case the neologism ("Friedman unit") in question, rather than the concept. To quote the guideline, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." (Emphasis in original.) So, yes, to your first point, sources that establish notability DO need to be ABOUT the topic of the article. That is, indeed, the whole pointa major tenet of WP:N. Croctotheface 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to ask you to chilll out a little bit regarding the tone of some of your comments. I don't think it's really productive to accuse me of being a POV pusher or accusing me of moving the goalposts or anything of that nature. These type of comments, per WP:CIVIL, are generally not considered productive for discussion and establishing consensus. Croctotheface 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Editors and Publishers article is a reliable secondary source about the term, it is not an article that simply uses the term. Davidhc 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If the text I found through a Google search here is accurate, then this is an article about the concept of Friedman repeatedly saying "the next six months" that mentions the term in one sentence, but it's not an article about the term. Croctotheface 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the full text of the article. This full article definitely confirms as a secondary source that the Friedman Unit is an accurate and correct term for describing the use of the phrase "The next six months" in the style of Thomas Friedman. As you can see, the article starts by presenting the term "the Friedman Unit" in the opening paragraph, explains how it applies to the use of the phrase "the next six months", and makes a special note that the word did not originate in the article itself. This is what a secondary source is supposed to do. Davidhc 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is about Friedman and his procilvity to talk about "the next six months", not the term. The article MENTIONS the term, but it is not ABOUT the term itself. Basically, the Wikipedia article covers the term in far more detail than any other source. This should simply not happen. One sentence in E&P, three sentences in HuffPo...that's just not enough for an encyclopedia article. I'm actually inclined to agree with you that "Freidman unit" is a meaningful phrase with descriptive power and so forth. However, that in itself does not merit a WP article. The term can be covered in Atrios and at Wiktionary to the same effect. Croctotheface 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The E&P article is about the Friedman Unit, it talks about nothing but the Friedman Unit, in fact the article proves that the Friedman Unit was not a "one off" event because the main body of the article is on how Thomas Friedman continues to use the Friedman Unit. This article in combination with the other references given meet the criteria of "multiple non-trivial sources". Please see my next entry. Davidhc 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is legitimate as determined by the wikipedia guidelines and so it shoudl be kept. The "multiple non-trivial sources" given in this article prove that this article is a legitimate entry in Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines do a good job of making sure that articles are not hoaxes or inventions of their editors or made for the pure purpose of pushing neologisms that are not already widespread (by that I mean a neologism that is an invention of the editor). The Friedman Unit is a fact that exists outside of the context of this article, as the sources given in the article prove, and this article does an excellent job of presenting an encyclopedic summary of that fact to the general public. There is nothing more that you can ask of an encyclopedia. Davidhc 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the E&P article mentions the Friedman Unit in one sentence and then talks about a different subject. As other editors have already said many, many times, that is simply not enough to meet WP:A. I don't know why you say the article "talks about nothing but the Friedman Unit", because that is just not true. You don't need to bring this up repeatedly and bold every paragraph. And I'm not sure which guidelines you keep referring to, but without reliable sources this article would certainly not meet WP:NEO. — Kelw (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now: if you merge with Atrios you also have to merge with Thomas Friedman. The 'next six months' phenomenon in Friedman's columns is notable and supported by multiple non-trivial sources, dating from the original FAIR article. If editors are prepared to migrate discussion of the phenomenon to the Friedman entry (where it currently has an 'original research' tag) then discussion of the 'Friedman Unit' neologism can be migrated to the Atrios entry with an appropriate cross-reference. But I think the Friedman merge cannot be ignored, and has to occur at the same time, because the 'next six months' phenomenon is not limited to discussions by Atrios. Holgate 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article does not contain any verifiable information that hasn't already been merged into Atrios. If you wish to merge into the Friedman article, that can be done from the Atrios article after a consensus is obtained on the Friedman talk page. You might argue the "six months" phenomenon is notable, but in my opintion this article on a neologism is clearly not notable and needs to be deleted. — Kelw (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. the elements of the article that should be merged into the Friedman article (on the repeated 'next six months') are ones that shouldn't be merged into the Atrios article, on basic relevance grounds. Hence my vote: the 'next six months' material is notable and verifiable for Friedman, and dumping it off in the Atrios article as a half-way house just shifts the issue without resolving it. If the neologism is notable enough to merge with the Atrios article, then the thing to which it refers needs to be in its proper place. (In short: if A coins term B to refer to what X says about Y, then the discussion of Y needs to be on X's page, not A's.) Merge to both, or keep for now. Holgate 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please maintain a civil tone and refrain attacks like "that makes no sense whatsoever". If you insist, you can take out what doesn't belong in the Atrios article and place it in the Friedman article. The "six months" phenomenon can easily be summarized in a single sentence on Friedman's article, with a reference linking to the FAIR article. Beyond this, all the content is either original research or already merged. There is no need to keep this article around if you want to merge into Friedman's article. — Kelw (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from reflexive accusations of incivility: WP:CIVIL is not a cudgel to be waved indiscriminately. The 'six months' phenomenon deserves more than a single sentence, but I'm going to deal with that over at the Friedman article and start a more substantial merge. Holgate 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have pretty well defined the debate here. If the article was called "Six months," then it would be overwhelmingly well sourced. The point is that the reliable sources do NOT use the term "Friedman Unit." Politicians and pundits have used the "six month" expression for (lest I date myself) generations, about all kinds of situations. The article gives a definition of the term Friedman unit as a "six month period" but then exclusively provides examples from the Iraq war discussions - not one of which uses the term "Friedman unit" or the variations ("Friedman," "F.U."). Risker 13:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good argument for looking to see if there are sufficient secondary sources to use for an an "Antecedents" section (cognates before "FU" was coined), while keeping in compliance with OR/synthesis guidelines. Since these may be more likely to appear in books, not digital form, it may be some time before these are unearthed. But this is no argument for deleting the article.

I think we've reached a degree of consensus here, Kelw: I've sketched out the 'six months' criticism on the Friedman article, providing mutual links between that section and the Atrios article. That's the space that this neologism should really occupy. The quotations are worth saving somewhere, though Demopedia/DKosopedia seems more appropriate. Holgate 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Huffington Post as a reliable source: although there are blog-sections on HuffPost, it is far more than that. As the Editor of Salon magazine recently wrote: "I root for the Politico [website] and other growing publications less new to the Web, like the Huffington Post and Josh Marshall's growing Talking Points empire, because if Salon is right about the future of Web publishing (and I believe we are) we can't, won't and shouldn't be the only ones (besides bloggers) [sic] making an independent go of it out here. So I applaud the Politico and the journalists who've been lured from old media to explore the new world." So the editor of Salon distinguishes HuffPost from bloggers. It does not make sense to apply WP guidelines on any old blog to online news sites edited and written by experienced and highly-regarded journalists. Eugene Banks 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - While blogs might not be reliable sources in general, they are precisely what is needed to establish the usage of a neologism. If you take a walk and every third person you meet uses a particular neologism, it doesn't matter if the people you've met are experts on the subject the neologism is part of, or whether they are experts on usage, or whether they even properly understand the word or are using it correctly. What matters is that their very use of the word establishes the diffusion of the neologism into the general population, which is really the point. So, if a lot of different blogs are using "Friedman unit", then the word is in usage, whether or not the bloggers understand the first thing about Iraq or Thomas Friedman. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 14:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a dictionary's job, not an encyclopedia's, to document usage of words. Pan Dan 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It is, however, an encyclopedia's job to provide background on what it means, where it came from, what provoked its coinage, who coined it, the spread of its use, debate about the meaning, etc. etc. etc. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

Comment: Last night I went through the first 500 google-hits on the term "Friedman Unit." Out of that 500, there was exactly one link that constituted a reliable source, and it is already in the article. Perhaps more crucially, there were also almost 100 mirrors of the Wikipedia article, and at least 50 more that said "Wikipedia defines...." And of course WP was #1 and #2 on the google-hit parade. In other words - Wikipedia's entry is directly or indirectly responsible for 150 out of 500 of the top google-hits on this term. It certainly looks to me that WP:NEO is an issue here. Risker 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that there are reliable sources for this article. Please see my own test results below. Davidhc 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

An experiment: This may seem like overkill, but I ran a quick test of my own because this is an issue that is important to ALL entries in wikipedia. I ran three variations of google searches for the Friedman Unit to see how it faired alone, with, and without wikipedia in the search criteria using the search terms:

1) "Friedman Unit" 2) "Friedman Unit" wikipedia 3) "Friedman Unit" -wikipedia

The results were as follows:

Friedman Unit alone: 259,000 (Wikipedia entry was first hit) with: 587 without: 261,000

(NOTE: if you run Friedman Unit without the quotes you get over 1.5 million hits)

To get a random sample of wikipedia to compare it to, I hit the "random article" link five times and did the same test on the pages it gave me. The results were as follows:

Thottiyam alone: 546 (wikipedia first hit) with wikipedia: 92 without wikipedia: 510

Air transports of heads of state alone: 226 (wikipedia second hit) with: 154 without: 64

Yamaha DX7 alone: 127,000 (wikipedia 3rd hit) with: 963 without: 118,000

Music at Work alone: 77,900 (wikipedia 6th hit) with: 553 without: 73,100

Enfield Town F.C. alone: 559 (wikipedia 3rd hit) with: 226 without: 508

As you can see, ALL the entries came up with wikipedia in the top 10 hits. Also, the Friedman Unit has by far the best ratio of with to without than any of the five random entries, which means that by the argument given above, we would have to delete ALL of these entries, and I am sure many more. The reason wikipedia shows up is not because of the popularity of any given article, but because of the popularity of wikipedia in general. When people want a source to link a topic in their web page, they link to wikipedia. All the copycat sites know this, and so they farm off the wikipedia entries to get traffic. Hence there is a big difference between a site that mirrors the wikipedia article and someone saying "as defined by wikipedia" in their web page. Making the argument that a wikipedia page is somehow pushing a neologism only applies if that term does not exist anywhere else but in wikipedia. The multiple non-trivial sources given in the article on the Friedman unit prove that the term is in wide use without the help of the article. Davidhc 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As another editor already mentioned, counting Google hits is not research. Do you have any "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term" to satisfy the standard set at WP:NEO? Please recall that the "six month phenomenon" that the term describes is NOT the same thing as the term itself. So far, all I can see that you have is three sentences from HuffPo and one sentence from E&P. Where's the beef? Croctotheface 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Croc if you got confused. If you scroll up a bit, then you will see the comment that I was responding to. But thank you for repeating the fact that google hits alone do not insure notability. I didn't feel it was necessary to repeat that fact in order to refute the claims of neologism that I was responding to, but I guess it would have been sufficient. Still, when you read the comment I was responding to you will see that Risker in his google search gave further confirmation to the fact that one of the references listed in the article is in fact a "reliable source." Davidhc 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not actually responding to what I asked. I asked if you know of a reliable source of which the "Friedman Unit" is the SUBJECT. That is, not merely mentioned or used in the article, but article itself is ON the "Unit". Not on Friedman or his proclivity to set arbitrary dates in the future, but the actual neologism that we're talking about. It is my contention that I have yet to see a single reliable source that is ON the Friedman unit. I've seen a one sentence mention in a reliable source. That does not establish notability. Do you know of any reliable sources of which the "Friedman unit" is the subject? That is, if you asked the author of the piece what it is about, he or she would likely say, "well, this is an article about the Friedman unit"? Croctotheface 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as an overly stringent interpretation of 'reliable sourcing', and ignores the multiple non-trivial standard that has already been demonstrated. Nowhere do the guidelines on reliable sources, notability, attribution, original research, etc. state or hint that an article must be the sole subject of a reliable source. Nor do guidelines say that these sources must be about e.g., the etymology, origins, history, definition, existence qua neologism, or usage of a term, that would misconstrue the guidelines. Much of Wikipedia would fail this test, and not just crappy articles. A source in which the concept is a theme or featured prominently is clearly sufficient. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Friedman unit is not the subject of reliable sources as cited in the article, it's Talk page, and above. For example:

• It is a significant subject of the E&P article, as Davidhc enumerated above: "The E&P article is about the Friedman Unit, [...] in fact the article proves that the Friedman Unit was not a 'one off' event because the main body of the article is on how Thomas Friedman continues to use the Friedman Unit." It would, of course, be very difficult to write an article on it and not "mention Friedman and his proclivity to set arbitrary dates in the future," as E&P did, so of course those subjects are present as well.
• The online magazine Huffington Post, a reliable source (as documented above), deems the phrase "Friedman Unit" to be the best new phrase of 2006.
• The phrase is a also significant subject of the CNN interview; even if the exact phrase itself is not used, Kurtz is clearly asking Friedman about the concept.
• An online column (not a blog) for The American Prospect notes that "Friedman has become justly famous for the Friedman Unit -- a 6-month, endlessly renewable time period that will prove critical for Iraq."
• As noted above, the guidelines' caution on use of blogs as a source is not absolute. And in this case (as discussed on the Talk page and here), there are good reasons why one might also consider blogs (such as DailyKos or the thousands of others that use the term) as "multiple non-trivial sources'. Namely, the concept FU contains within it a critique of traditional media (for a lack of critical reporting on the Iraq war early on), hence its widespread usage in informal circles as well as the reliable sources documented above.
• While Google is not a reliable research source, on the other hand at some point in establishing the widespread usage of a term, quantity has it's own quality, and 250,000 hits for "Friedman unit" should not be ignored.

Etc. Twedle 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the guideline, that's fine, but it's unambiguous here. WP:NEO says, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The word "about" is italicized WITHIN THE GUIDELINE. Some people here seem to be operating as if WP guidelines and policies say something like "if a topic is mentioned at all in any reliable source, it should have a Wikipedia article." That is not the case. Croctotheface 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Yes, and as discussed above, the cited articles are about the term (as well as other subjects). "Some people" is an unrefutable charge. "as if... something like... 'topic mentioned at all in any reliable source'" -- sarcasm is not constructive. Btw, the page on neologisms is simply an ongoing discussion of possible guidelines. There are four higher levels of policy and dozens of other guidelines. At the top, see for example the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Below that, see the Simplified Ruleset of 15 rules. Below even that, see the Wikipedia:List of policies with 42 policies. Where "neologism" fits is one section below even that, under "No Original Research," for which the main policy is: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." FU clearly fits this overarching policy. And within WP:OR, the emphasis is on attribution: the guidance is only against neologisms "without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." The roots of the Neologism page, which is one layer further down, stated: "Wikipedia doesn't accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits (e.g. Google)." This was strengthened to weed out editors who created a term on their own blog, then -- with no little other adoption of the term -- promoting it within Wikipedia. Although a few Google hits to random blogs set up by just anyone are no longer seen as a reputable source, FU goes far beyond this. BipDeBop 17:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second arbitrary section break

Keep. It's out there, it's in use, it's a popular concept. I don't understand the urge to strip Wikipedia of articles. Nor do I understand people who contribute to an online encyclopedia that anybody can edit turning up their noses at blogs. Vidor 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about people slamming blogs. In general its a good guideline to have as it prevents people from pushing their own ideas and then backing it up with their own blogs. Also, in the current case of the Friedman Unit, it has all the references it needs to meet the criteria set out in the guidelines, so people can go on slamming blogs all they want, it won't make a difference. Davidhc 06:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The article cites many cases of people saying things will happen in 6 months, 3 months, 6-9 months etc. It cites no use (except by a blogger) of the term itself. If some one can come up with a citable use of the term 'Friedman unit' itself, they should do so and add it to the article. Otherwise it is a mere neologism. Peterkingiron 13:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, these issues (usage, citations, reputation of online magazines, role of blogs) have been addressed above. BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Re: neologisms. Since this seems to be the main focus of requests for deletion, I've synthesized some of these points here, with minor improvements/ clarifications/ rejoinders. I hope this is OK with others. (My apologies in advance if not, I'm not trying to claim credit for these, nor put words in the original commenters' mouths, nor just repeat them. I'm trying to move the discussion forward.) BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The neologism rule is in place to keep people from using Wikipedia to coin a term. In the case of the Friedman Unit, the term is already widely used without the help of this article. While the google test does not assure notability of a term, the many and varied hit results for the Friedman Unit show that it is widely used by millions of people. (User:Risker asked for a reliable source on the estimate of "millions." An appeal to logic: with 260,000 Google hits for FU, including a number of widely-read online magazines and blogs, it is reasonable to conjecture that on average each hit was read by at least 8 people, thus two million is a reasonable working estimate for purposes of discussion.)
2. Wikipedia guidelines do a good job of making sure that articles are not hoaxes or inventions of their editors or made for the pure purpose of pushing neologisms that are not already widespread (by that I mean a neologism that is an invention of the editor). The Friedman Unit is a fact that exists outside of the context of this article, as the sources given in the article prove, and this article does an excellent job of presenting an encyclopedic summary of that fact to the general public. (The E&P article does not just "mention the Friedman Unit in one sentence and then talks about a different subject," as discussed elsewhere.)
3. What matters is the widespread online use of the word establishes the diffusion of the neologism into the general population, which is really the point. (The article goes on to provide far more than a mere dictionary definition.)
4. Making the argument that a wikipedia page is somehow pushing a neologism only applies if that term does not exist anywhere else but in wikipedia. The multiple non-trivial sources given in the article on the Friedman unit prove that the term is in wide use without the help of the article.
5. Please also note the the restrictions on neologisms are designed to prevent the creation of new terms through Wikipedia, not describing existing uses (from secondary sources). This article does not "define or introduce new terms or provide new definitions of existing terms," it simply reports on an existing neologism with widespread adoption. "Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Attribution," which this article does. The primary source for the term was (it seems) Atrios. The secondary sources include the Editor & Publisher article, and references in the journals listed in the article. This page is a tertiary article.
6. WP's VfD/AfD process has been horribly mangled, if not outright broken, for quite some time now, as people move beyond the entirely laudable goal of culling vanity cruft and spam to grind all of the sharp points off of articles at the edge of Wikipedia — precisely those articles where Wikipedia is most useful, IMHO, in that one can find plenty of good information sources for "Yugoslavia" or "Aaron Burr", but not so many good information sources on, say, Kazu Kibuishi's Copper. I think that "Friedman Unit" is squarely within the ambit of acceptable articles for Wikipedia.
7. Trying to squelch a legitimate new term is as much an abuse of "avoid neologisms" policy as is trying to promote a not-yet-accepted term. (Perhaps someone should revise the neologism policy to reflect this. As Bryan pointed out, WP guidelines are in a state of flux, especially on WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc.)
8. While it is true that "other crap exists" is not a valid argument unto itself, it is also true that guidelines emerge up from the consensus of editing on other articles. In the context of all the arguments for (and against) this page, consider why is Cheese-eating surrender monkeys an article if FU isn't? The "Cheese-eating" article even begins by stating that within a year or two of inception "the phrase began to fall into disuse." Why don't those who favor deleting FU also favor deleting "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys"? (I do not advocate this.) Here are just a few other hastily-gathered random examples of neologisms with articles in Wikipedia: WikiWikiWeb, PmWiki, CRC, Delimiter, InterWiki, Metacharacter, Spyce, Leet, l33t, n00bs, B1FF, -izzle, boxen, warez, SFV, kewl, CDisplay, CDisplayEx, Zipeg, ARJ. If all these are allowed, then why not Friedman unit? Converely, if FU is deleted then all these and thousands of other neologisms must be as well. (We could invite their editors into this discussion, perhaps relocated onto NEO:Talk, but this would seem to be unnecessarily provoking controversy. However, if a strict interpretation of neologism guidelines were adopted here then it would have to be applied to all these other articles as well.) Unlike most of these examples, FU does in fact does have an article about it in reliable sources, including E&P. Even if it did not, an encyclopedia should not discriminate against neologisms with a social, controversial, or political usage, while allowing neologisms relating to technology or the Internet.

BipDeBop 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm no longer going to attempt to engage in the specifics of the debate here. If editors are going to insist that an article that mentions a term for one sentence is "about" the term, I don't really think that there's much hope for arriving at any kind of common ground. It seems to me that most of the arguments in favor of keeping amount to "it's important" or "I like it", which, obviously, are not the same as notability. I want to repeat, for probably the second or third time, that any and all relevant information about this term can be presented at Atrios and, potentially, Thomas Friedman. The current page can become a redirect. Nothing of value will be lost in doing this: this is not an attempt to erase the term. It simply does not meet the standards required to have its own Wikipedia article. Croctotheface 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for deletion

When I originally merged I used the following arguments. I consider them still to be valid and I still think the article should be deleted and a summary merged with Atrios.

WP:NEO does not apply solely to terms coined for or on Wikipedia:

• The Friedman Unit is undoubtedly a neologism. The source is recent and known. Secondary sources almost invariably use the same primary source, Duncan Black's weblog.
• While the page makes note that such things must be referenced, WP:NEO specifically mentions page intended to track the growth and adoption of neologisms as an example of infringing articles. it should be noted that this is the primary purpose of this page.

WP:SYN discourages the collation of various unrelated sources to advance an original argument:

• Few if any of the "sources" listed in the main table have ever heard of the term "Friedman Unit", let along used it themselves. Using them as "references" for the Friedman (unit) article directly fails WP:SYN.

In addition, and importantly:

• Practically all of this is taken from sources Black has linked himself. In essence, it's just a distillation of a bunch of Eschaton posts.

There are far better places for such research than Wikipedia. WP:NOT Lexis-Nexis.

This really belongs in either list of political epithets or in the Atrios article for these reasons. An expansive article on the term is unwarranted and really not greatly suitable for an encyclopedia.

Chris Cunningham 14:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for Keep?? No consensus for keep

Thank you Croctotheface, Risker, and Dhartung for changing your position from delete to keep with edits. If there is now a consensus to keep the article, then I think it is time to end the deletion debate and move back to the normal editing discussion on the article's talk page. If you would like to edit the article, however, please refrain from deleting large sections without reaching a consensus through the proper discussions. Davidhc 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have most certainly NOT changed my position from delete, and you know perfectly well that is the case. Regardless of the merit of an article, I personally feel if I am going to to take a position (whether keep or delete) at an AfD, then I have accepted an obligation to try to improve the article. The fact that the three of us have all deleted the original research from the article, only to be reverted with tags such as "vandalism," makes a mockery of this process. I have retitled this section because the former title borders on NPA, and at minimum is beyond presumptuous. Risker 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was pretty bizarre as well. Croctotheface's last comment was a belief that the best result would be a merge and last edit was a removal of the contentious table. How this can be construed as a U-turn is beyond me. Chris Cunningham 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My position is very much for delete with redirect to Atrios. This comment from Davidhc strikes me as very, very strange. Croctotheface 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear at this point that there is no consensus to either delete or keep. With some improvements and judicious content decisions, this article should be a keep, especially in light of the multiple reliable sources cited as using the term. Bill Oaf 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't Take the law into your own hands We have not heard back from Dhartung, but if you all are still strongly for deletion, then your efforts to erase large sections of the article currently under debate in the absence of any consensus over those sections, can only be interpreted as having the intent to override the AfD procedures. It is important to note that there was no "editing" involved, only "white blanking" whole sections of the article along with their external references. Once more, the table section that was deleted was not debated in these pages. Much of the debate centered on the references in the body of the text, not the table. If you have issues with the table, then I suggest that we end the deletion debate and move back to editing, or that you debate the contents of the table in this discussion, and keep pushing for deletion. However, if you want the article deleted, then you are going to have to either wait for a consensus, or wait for an administrator to weigh in, as specified in the discussion guidelines. You can not take the law into your own hands and start deleting the article at your own discretion while a debate is ongoing. This is not my opinion, this is simply following the guidelines of a discussion. I am going to restore the article so that it can be debated properly without censoring the very text that we are supposed to be debating. Davidhc 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is common practice during AfD discussions to edit the article. In most cases, these edits serve to improve the article and often help the case of those seeking to keep. It seems that your declaration that by editing the article, I was somehow "changing my position from delete to keep" was an attempt to use this AfD discussion to make a WP:POINT. Instead, I was making an edit based on the fact that I saw basically nobody, regardless of their history with the article or opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted, defending the inclusion of the table that I deleted. I also want to note that this is not a discussion over whether to delete certain bits of text in the article, but rather whether to delete the whole thing. If this discussion is closed as keep or no consensus, that would not be an endorsement of everything within the page. This case is a content dispute. Your leveling accusations of "vandalism" (in edit summaries at the page), "blanking", and "censorship" do not add to the discourse here. Your assumptions of bad faith do not aid the goal of reaching a consensus about what is best for Wikipedia. Croctotheface 21:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to share with the community, Croctotheface saw it fit to leave the following warning on my talk page (I have since removed it):

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Friedman (unit). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Croctotheface 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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.