Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First World Problems

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 Speedy deletion - (Patent nonsense). This article from start to finish has been nothing more than a forum in-joke. If it's ever to be a serious article, it needs to rewritten from scratch citing real academics and journalists.  Netsnipe  ►  20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First World Problems

First World Problems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:OR and/or WP:NEO Iknowyourider (t c) 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

this is a fascinating conundrum in the modern world and wikipedia desperately needs to stay on top of stuff like this to stay relevant.

also, ironically, having your wikipedia article marked for deletion is perhaps the ultimate FWP. as a mark of wikipedia's hipness (hipsters love irony!) perhaps the article could be left in this state indefinitely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imperialism cola (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 Jun 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously a term with cultural significance, only needs more references. MisterQuickly 16:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Complete and total original research. Wildthing61476 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable but needs more sources. This article seems trying to trace a current phrase through its usage. One of the articles linked actually talks about the phrase in general terms. Authors should include material from that in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.98.84 (talk • contribs)
• Strong keep. This piece is coming together nicely, and with time and effort could one day be a featured article. — Imperialism cola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. But needs more examples of usage. — Tesharr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete: A garbage article that blows holes through WP:OR and WP:V. No reliable sources to back up assertion that this is a "current phrase," complete synthesis.  RGTraynor  17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- utter rubbish and offensive Astrotrain 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like something off a blog, not an encyclopaedia article. --Folantin 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs work. [1] would appear to indicate that the phrase is notable, and has significant content. The current article is perhaps not perfect, but this is a common WP:New Article Problem. This one hasn't stood even for a day yet.

• (Disclosure: I have once been a victim of WP:IDONTLIKEIT delete of a fresh article that was thus deprived a chance to develop properly.) Digwuren 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would consent to see it userified for that reason; but this should not be in article space. There may be an article here; but this is not it, and is not likely to become it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as violation of Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Sure it's a phrase a few people have used, but this article is just silly. Slideshow Bob 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor. Neologism with no indication of mainstream use. The examples used as "First world problems" and "third world problems" seem specifically designed to trivialize the concept of a "first world problem." In other words this article is blatantly WP:POV. Resolute 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neologism, POV, non-encyclopedic. --tjstrf talk 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability of the phrase is not asserted.--Flamgirlant 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Doesn't seem POV to me, and OR accusations may be premature, looks like there are sources out there. Appears to me to be good subject for an encyclopaedia article. Capmango 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It brings about a new sense of discussion to the world we live in.— Jellybeancontest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Moreschi ^Talk 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This term definitely seems relevant and makes sense, but a neologism's a neologism, and without better sources, it's original research. If there were any relevant, reputable sources to come along, I could change my opinion to Keep. 68.186.51.190 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Helps to define problems for our disassociated youth whom may not be able to fully grasp such differences. mutualdistrust 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC) — Mutualdistrust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - sheer rubbish "sourced" to a couple of blogs. Utter crap. Moreschi ^Talk 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as POV rubbish, I have removed the worst, it is reinfocing the myth that all first worlders live in paradise while all we who live in the third world suffer in misery which is simply propagating a myth. There may be a case for an article with a different name on sonme of the basic issues but this article doesnt provide a starting point, SqueakBox 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't get that from the article; I got the idea that certain things that are enormous problems in the first world are completely irrelevant in the third, and vice versa. But I can't tell if this article is OR, and I don't have time to go find out. I could agree that a different article with a different name approaching this issue might be the best solution. Capmango 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Googling is not research; the first footnote cites a paragraph by Paul Krugman which reads

  In this article, I will follow that procedure to think about the impact of emerging economies on wages and jobs in the advanced world. I will start with an oversimplified and unrealistic picture of the world economy and then gradually add realistic complications. At each stage, I will also bring in some data. By the end, I hope to have made clear that the seemingly sophisticated view that the Third World is causing First World problems is questionable on conceptual grounds and wholly implausible in terms of the data. link

I do find the OR that Rogue offers a wish-fulfillment of living in the Third World hilarious, however, and offer BJAODN as an alternative. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I must have skipped over that paragraph the first time. That is pretty hilarious. I wonder how many third worlders spend their days fighting mythical monsters in underground dungeons. Capmango 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely less than the number of first worlders, SqueakBox 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not as bad as "My McGriddle's folds were not injected with enough syrup this morning" Wildthing61476 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How does that change the fact that Krugman used the phrase "first world problems" ? User:Imperialism_cola

Comment The fact that Krugman used the phrase is not a justification for an article and especially one that fails to address the reality of first world problems, SqueakBox 19:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially since his argument is that real problems in the First World are not being caused by the Third World, although some claim this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Alot of OR. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original-research-o-rama -- and not even all that thoughtful OR, as the Krugman bit demonstrates. --Calton | Talk 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as soft, fluffy, POV-pushing neologism-cruft. Also, warn or block any users who turn out to be connected to this for meatpuppetry, disruption, and general stupidity: "it needs some historical background and fake citations," "my fifteen minutes of wikipedia fame!" "i cannot muffle my laughter at work," "where can i read about the pet peeves of this fucking fag who wants this deleted," "these guys really hate original research," etc., once this closes. --Dynaflow babble 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• delete as trivial essay, I can not see how a good essay, or a good sourced article, could be written on this over-broad subject. DGG 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, this is the start of a very earnest essay full of original research. At worst, it's utterly pointless. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:06, 21 June 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.