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 subject of this article is a neologism. The term has not been the subject of any notable publications, let alone a significant one such as a book.
The term has been mentioned, briefly, in a handful of reliable sources, but that specifically does NOT establish notability per WP:NEO.
All significant information about the term is already contained at Atrios, so turning this article into a redirect would not remove information from the encyclopedia.
Currently, the article just defines the word and documents its usage. That is the job of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Croctotheface00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've gone over this in the article's talk page repeatedly. The term is not confined to just Atrios, there are notable sources in the references that actually claim it's notable (The Huffington Post cited it as the "Best New Phrase" of 2006), and there's more than just a dictdef here. Some valid points can be made for a merge and redirect (I don't personally agree with this but I can see it happening), but that's not a question of deletion. Bryan Derksen01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are often closed as merge and redirect. I don't think there's actually any information left to merge, though, so maybe "redirect without merge" is a more accurate way to describe my goal here. Croctotheface16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 'death by a thousand cuts' is probably most accurate. And the ethics of radically altering a page before an AfD discussion are problematic at best; it smacks of a personal quest to get rid of this particular article. Holgate18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's disingenuous to cut an article down then nominate it for deletion because after your deletions it doesn't have any significant information. I would encourage the voters to check out this version from before he started mutilating citing imaginary OR concerns. Chris Croy01:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to become too much of a back and forth, but there was a pretty strong consensus to remove that table as OR. I don't see how compiling a bunch of "this sounds like an example of X" in an article about X is anything but original synthesis of published material. If I were a lawyer arguing for the deletion of an article, and my singular intention were to get the article deleted, I'd expect I'd have a much easier time getting that older version filled with unencyclopedic material deleted than the current version. Croctotheface01:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article does not come close to failing WP:NEO. The submission says that "[t]he term has been mentioned, briefly, in a handful of reliable sources, but that specifically does NOT establish notability per WP:NEO." This is simply not true. In fact, WP:NEO says that "[t]o 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 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 WP:NEO. —phh (t/c) 02:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, none of those sources are about the term. They're about the debate over the Iraq war. I don't think there is a single reliable source that, if you contacted the author, he or she would say, "My article is about the Friedman unit." Croctotheface02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term is intimately linked with the debate over the Iraq war, that's the entire point of it. I don't see how one would have an article about it without also discussing the war. Bryan Derksen03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculously legalistic treatment of the word "about." In context, the passage is clearly intended to distinguish between sources that explain the term and sources that merely use it, not to require that a source actually be primarily devoted to the term. I can't think of any other topic on Wikipedia where the bar is set even remotely that high. Anyway, that argument has been raised in several AfDs prior to this one, like here and here, and as far as I can see it's failed each time. —phh (t/c) 04:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this reading. "About" should not be taken to mean "the subject of the source", but rather that the source demonstrates by citing the term, qua term, that the term is well-known. Keep and Restore to old version. (Hoipolloi 15:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Those cases don't seem to be as much about rejecting my interpretation of the guideline as they are about having an overwhelming consensus of users be in favor of keeping. I think you'll find that just about every article is about a topic that has been the primary subject of several reliable sources. WP:N has made their guidelines clearer since the first nomination here. It says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." All the sources that people have cited as establishing the notability of this term spend a sentence or two on the term and the rest of the full-length article on another topic. These sources are more than adequate to source content within an article, but they do not come close to establishing the notability of the topic for its own article. Croctotheface16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. A merge and redirect to Atrios is entirely appropriate here. Although I haven't done a really hardline study of it, my quick google search impression is that the term's use peaked a while ago. Risker02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restore to old version. The article was sourced before it was hacked at, and I have to wonder if it was shortened (and sourced information removed) to make the subject appear less notable. This appears to me to be a content dispute, and if so it shouldn't have gone to AfD. (Edited.) --Charlene04:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article because the term has enough usage that a reader might want to know about the concept. (See this comment on the article's talk page for an example of such a reader.) Most of the table, however, should be (or remain) deleted. The table belongs in a broader article titled something like Iraq War projections. That John Boehner thinks the next three months will be critical isn't relevant to informing the reader about Tom Friedman's reiterated view that the next six months would be critical. JamesMLanetc06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Dhartung | Talk08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a pointless article. Should Wikipedia have an article for every politically-motivated term that gets spread around blogs? Should we have Silky Pony? Or Doughy Pantload? Or Fauxtography? (That one exists, but it's just a redirect) Or 101st Keyboard Brigade? (I'm including terms from both sides here.) They all have a meaning to anyone who reads political blogs, but they're not notable enough, or not interesting enough, to merit their own articles. The same applies for this one. It's not a real unit of time, it's a term of political commentary, and thus there's not much to say about it besides "here's the list of people who have used it". The term can be referenced in the articles for Thomas Friedman and Atrios, and that can be quite enough. Korny O'Near13:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't there be articles about those things? In fact, of those terms you mention the only one I'm personally aware of is the 101st Keyboard Brigade, and I'm only vaguely familiar with what that one means. It would be good for me to be able to click on those links and find out about each of them. But even the one that has a redirect, Fauxtography, is largely useless to me since the article it redirects to doesn't even mention the term. This is a flaw in our encyclopedia, IMO, not a thing to be proud of. Bryan Derksen00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore. It appears that some editors are trying to give this article the death of a thousand cuts, mutilating it in advance of an AfD discussion so that it appears less worthy of keeping. If that's being done deliberately. it's shameful. Ironically, being targetted for deletion by the non-notability zealots has solidified the subject as notable. Holgate18:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what does it say about the "keep and restore" advocates' knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that they advocate restoring a table that is completely 100% original research to the article? Honestly, if that older version were the one at question, I would feel even more confident that it would get deleted. The original AfD was almost closed as delete because those supporting the article did not cite policy. I still fail to see where anyone has cited policy to establish that this article is notable and appropriate for Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary. Croctotheface18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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 WP:DICDEF. 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. Arjunasbow19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like this quote from above: Actually, 'death by a thousand cuts' is probably most accurate. And the ethics of radically altering a page before an AfD discussion are problematic at best; it smacks of a personal quest to get rid of this particular article. The user who is driving this AfD campaign has tirelessly worked to strip the article of information whenever possible. Vidor00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Croctotheface's defense, I too have both removed content from the article and argued for its deletion, and there hasn't been any nefarious scheming on my part that led to the removal of content. Rather, the same reasoning behind one was behind the other: given how little mention the term has gotten, relatively speaking, there's not much that can be said about it that wouldn't violate some or other rule of original research. Unlike the vast majority of articles about terms, in which both the term and the concept behind it can be discussed, here the concept is quite nebulous (as befits a joke), so only facts about the literal term are really worthy of inclusion. For basically that reason, I think it should be deleted. So please assume good faith. Korny O'Near02:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has cited policy in support of restoring the information that I "stripped" from the article. In reality, User:bbatsell, an administrator, removed the table, at this diff. The notion that this is somehow a one-man crusade on my part is troubling to me. I could flip what you are saying and argue that the users who advocate keeping the article added a bunch of filler material in the attempt to make it appear more substantial. All this article does is define and document the usage of a term. Length aside, that is not the job of an encyclopedia. Croctotheface03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I was shocked to see this article back on the block despite its excellent sourcing and the notability of this emerging concept and award-winning term. Then I saw that it had become, once again, the victim of a personal crusade. There should be a way to protect decent articles from being vengefully dragged through this process over and over. I didn't have a big argument with removing the table as OR - I was on the fence with that one - but to see it hacked out, and then have the article be attacked on these grounds...never expected that. Bill Oaf23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just gets ridiculous after a while. As soon as one AfD finishes, another starts. It gets counterproductive very quickly. Also, don't tell me what to do. Bill Oaf20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restore Not much more to add than what has been discussed repeatedly over the past few months. This is an excellent article that has recently been reduced to the bare bones through repeated deletions. Luckily the references have survived and those speak for themselves to establish that this is a credible article. Please end the AfD so we can get back to improving the article. Davidhc04:05, 28 May 2007 (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.