Talk:Friedman Unit
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friedman Unit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with Atrios on 8 May 2007. The result of the discussion was not merged. |
| This article was nominated for merging with Thomas Friedman on 28 July 2014. The result of the discussion was not merged. |
- /Archive 1: Nov 2006 - Mar 2007
- /Archive 2: AfD discussion part 1
- /Archive 3: Mar 2007 - Sept 2007
Expression[edit]
The expression "tongue-in-cheek" is colloquial and may not be clear to most readers who learned English as a second language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.247.247.239 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- tongue-in-cheek now wikilinked. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Citation overkill[edit]
There appears to be some citation overkill for an article this size. I realize that some of this might have to do with the editing that occurred during deletion discussion in 2007, but it might be worth paring down the number of references. Barkeep Chat | $ 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Origin[edit]
It's simply bizarre that this article doesn't link back to Duncan Black (Atrios) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3756:180:746D:AC81:FDA3:AE58 (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Done 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Nine years later...[edit]
I just did a google search on this term.
"Friedman Unit" 6680 hits - The term
"Friedman Unit" + "is a" 3840 hits - Defining the term
So to be generous, after 9 years, the term has been actively used in 2840 places. In other words, it's an obscure term that few people actually use. Isn't it time to delete this from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.185.2 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Northern South American cougar only returns 360 results, shall we delete it too? Even if your claim is true and it is not used any more, still you can find the term in older texts and one may worry about what its meaning is. When such a person googles for the term, would you prefer her finding this page or come empty handed? Isn't this Wikipedia is all about? What would be gained from deleting this article? Besides searching just for "Friedman unit" is not indicative of its usage. Searching "one more friedman -unit" returns 10900 results for instance. Another point, so there are 3840 pages defining the term which means there is a demand to find the meaning of the term. If there is such a demand for a term, wouldn't you think there should be a WP article on that term? Pembeci (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Why shouldn't Wikipedia catalogue obscure things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgileAlligator (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)