Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First world problem


 * 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 Delete per WP:NEO Selket Talk 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

First world problem

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Failed prod back in January. Poor article on a Reddit meme, basically, sourced to Reddit. A couple of sources have the words used together in a normal discussion as those words would normally be used so now an editor misconstrues those as academic support for the meaning of these words as an academic discussion of a term and thus supposedly justifying a Wikipedia entry... the real world problem here is that that's not significant coverage by any reliable source, that's about as trivial coverage as you can get, as it's not even discussing wat the article was intended to cover (the Reddit joke). DreamGuy (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Are you joking, that it's just a Reddit thing? Did you do any WP:BEFORE whatsoever? Yes, it's most frequently used by the privileged to lob softballs at themselves and their peers, and that can be grating--so what? Yes, the first cite is to Reddit, the next seven are not. So, I'll start adding more. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? We need real cites proving it is an actual notable thing, not random associations of the words failing next to each other. DreamGuy (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I originally nominated this article for deletion over six months ago. Hardly any new sources have been added and the article hasn't been expanded at all. Given the major sourcing issues, I think it should be deleted, personally. But I don't participate in AfD discussions hardly at all, so this is just my 2 cents. AgnosticAphid talk 21:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete until such time as the term really is "used by scholars and economists" as the article claims but doesn't substantiate. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A well-known meme that satisfies WP:WEB. Here's some coverage outside Reddit and Tumblr --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's such a pity that the article at hand is the results of Google searches stitched together without any attention to meaning and is a self-contradicting mish-mash of random article title and phrase matches, supported by a random list of book and song titles, and nothing like what would come out of some of the things that you point to.  in your list is pretty much another random title/phrase match, by the way.  It's a first-person opinion piece about an airplane trip. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so someone needs to edit and expand the article, potentially using the linked articles above as sources. Rome wasn't built in a day, and most articles aren't WP:GA immediately (or even after years of editing). Tthaas (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per DreamGuy. While some sources have used the phrase, that doesn't mean that they're used widely in the academic community to discuss a situation. Also, I would argue WP:RECENTISM as I doubt that the article as written refers to anything with a lasting impact. Regardless of the foregoing, if the article is kept, it would need extensive cleanup. Velinath (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Tthaas (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I nominated this article for prod the first time around.  It's true that it's not as blatantly offensive and inappropriate as it was at that time.  But really it's still problematic under WP:NEO; of the five sentences, at least four have major sourcing problems:
 * 1) Reddit's not an appropriate source for the first sentence, and the starbucks article (ref #3) is original research/a primary source because it doesn't actually talk about what the phrase 'first world problems' means, it just uses it. The new york times really says nothing to support the "but which are banal when compared to the difficulties encountered by those in the less developed Third World" part of the sentence, but overall that's at least a decent source.
 * 2) Reference number 4 is also a primary source/original research problem; it just uses the term, it's not actually about the term. I think that the final sentence also suffers from this problem, though I've not listened to the NPR broadcast.
 * 3) References 5 through 8 similarly are primary uses of this phrase. an appropriate article would be something like, "this article discusses how social scientists use the term 'first world problems' academically."  *not* "here's a use of 'first world problems' that I found on JSTOR" or whatever.  there are also substantive issues with at least 1 of these references, but that seems a bit far into the weeds.
 * 4) The "exact provenance" sentence has no source. It seems like this would be a crucial part of a legitimate article about a phrase!
 * The important point from WP:NEO (emphasis added) is "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." AgnosticAphid  talk 21:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO and Agnosticaphid's analysis. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 11 July 2012 (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.