Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First World privilege


 * 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 keep. Also keep in mind that other stuff existing is not a valid delete argument, and the opposite of that is not valid either. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  02:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

First World privilege

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This concept lacks a basis in academic literature. The Google results are full of blog posts and unsubstantiated conjecture. This article simply legitimizes a concept which lacks credibility. Letsrestoresanity (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Zero presence in academic journals. The references fail to establish an empirical argument for that notion so-called first world countries "oppress" so-called third world ones. "First world privilege" appears to be the result of pseudo social science. --174.238.11.90 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Fact check I ran a JSTOR search on "first world privilege" and got 24 hits.  Lame, butnot nothing.  I did not read the articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep - Letsrestoresanity failed to do WP:BEFORE other than a simple google search. Google Scholar gives a number of hits. The sources present in the article should not be dismissed either as they aren't just random blogs. Passes GNG. As for the above IP editor, we got some POV issues going on.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - From memory and a glance at more selective search results, there appear to be many substantial uses of the term in academic books and journals. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a soapbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sassmouth (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my vote I reserve the right to vote again the future on the article after giving the article more consideration Sassmouth (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "soapbox" mean in this context? How is this a soapbox and who's doing the soapboxing? Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I for one am wondering why I received a notification of this deletion on my personal talk page. I am wondering if there is a bit of WP:CANVASSING going on, and that I was messaged by Letsrestoresanity because he-she thought I would support the deletion. I won't comment on the deletion request itself because of this but thought that it should be brought up here. (if I was messaged for some other reason please inform me of why, as I am clearly ignorant if so).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Insertcleverphrasehere You were notified (among others who have an interest in the topic) for the simple reason that you have contributed significantly to this general topic. I therefore believe that you would have interesting input on this topic. Furthermore, your talk page indicates that you take part in deletion discussions. As per WP:CANVASSING appropriate notification via talk page: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" and "Editors known for expertise in the field". --Letsrestoresanity (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have never edited the article in question I am still confused. Perhaps you mean my edits to Male privilege, or my being in the Men's studies wikiproject? The other members of the wikiproject were not notified, and other members who I would consider at least as informed as me were also not notified (such as User:EvergreenFir or Flyer22). In any case, I'll assume good faith and move on. I'd advise against notifying editors that haven't even contributed to the page itself of a nomination in the future though.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep...Article lists several sources that are not blog posts and unsubstantiated conjecture so I don't see what the basis is for the nomination. ValarianB (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete - I can think of thousands of privileges that one could have. For example; I am slowly balding, and as a result, I am disadvantaged. Should we make a Hair privilege Wikipedia page as well? Cars are manufactured in all kinds of colors, should we make a page for Red cars and one for Blue cars ? Amin (Talk) 14:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you show sources for hair and car privilege? If not, then this seems like a silly argument to try to make and I think there is a rule or guide on "but there is / is not other things" arguments. ValarianB (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

*Note that WP:WORDISSUBJECT is the guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC) my error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Very tepid keep. Very, very tepid because the term has not entered the general conversation; rather, it is in use within an extremely narrow bandwidth of academic and political activists.(gBooks search .   Note also the similarity with First World problem (you know, that hashtag you use when complaining on twitter that the security cordon around Trump Tower on Fifth Ave made it take an extra 15 minutes to get to the Gucchi store) .  If we keep this article, I suggest that we merge and redirect First World problem here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable based on Gscholar results. I don't believe WP:WORDISSUBJECT actually applies here, since the sources are academics using the word for a largely agreed-upon meaning (in the social sciences). If that's true, then we don't actually have a POV issue. '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter 18:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO is the relevant standard. Although  my quick search on JSTOR showed use of this phrase in this way going back at least to 1990. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There available sources, so this topic is notable. And we do not only cover topics which have a basis in "academic literature", so the argument seems nonsensical to begin with. Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2016 (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.