Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money-rich, time-poor

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 as this is convincing enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money-rich, time-poor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced article, might not be notable and could be a violation of WP:NEOLOGISM. Also seems like a wp:coatrack for discussing income and leisure time in general. Prisencolin (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't a concept, like work-life balance. Mduvekot (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I did find this. GAB^Hello! 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is poor, but the phrase is pretty certainly not a neologism, even in Wikipedia terms - it has been around (though often as "cash-rich" or "work-rich" rather than "money-rich") for over 25 years both as a marketing category and as an element of a sociological critique of modern society and consumerism (the earliest use I have found of the first is this from 1988, and of the second is this from 1990), and while treatments tend to be brief, they frequently take the trouble to explain the term and/or state why it is important in their more general discussions (see, for example, this, this, this and this). I am not entirely certain that the topic is best treated in a standalone article (it is part of a classification that would probably be best treated as a whole, and the classification itself is similar enough to several others that it might be better discussed in a wider context), but I can't currently find a suitable target for a redirect or where information from here would naturally slot into an exiting article - and the term does seem to be a valid search term for which we should be supplying at least some limited information on Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is taught in an educational context. See Cambridge textbook. Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 16:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/ Merge - the article is poor quality, but the concept seems notable. It is one configuration of work-life balance, I would be happy for Money-rich, time-poor to be merged with that article - unless article was improved enough to be standalone. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've always wondered what the term for this specific concept is, and why no article exists. Thankfully it does now. Hawaan12 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2016 (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.