Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money-rich, time-poor (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 00:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Money-rich, time-poor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article in its lamentable current state reads more like a brief collection of vague examples within the very broad concept of time poverty. I'd say an article on this particular phrase is more suited for Wikitionary than for Wikipedia. A concise definition and any brief etymological/historical context of the expression is all that's needed. Mooonswimmer 20:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Time poverty, which appears to be a valid research subject, and expand. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any scholarly/encyclopedia content here. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Heavy on WP:SYNTH, and the term itself is sourced to LinkedIn, clearly not a RS. A merge or move to Time poverty doesn't make much sense because the sources cited aren't specifically describing the same thing (hence the SYNTH) and without all the examples-in-search-of-a-subject, there isn't much left that isn't already covered in that article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This feels largely like an essay. It includes many opinions in the prose ("Time by all accounts, [sic] is the most valuable thing people can possess.") and doesn't source the common use of the phrase very well. Mentions articles but doesn't attribute authors. I think that "time poverty" might be notable, but the article is supposed to be about the phrase, and none of the work of this article is really usable except for the sources (besides the Linkedin one). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:26, 9 February 2024 (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.