Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallacy of relative privation

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 redirect to First World problem. There are only two "keeps", and the one by the IP has nothing to do with our inclusion standards, so we've got consensus not to keep. We don't have consensus about whether to delete, merge or redirect, however, and where to. So that part of the outcome is officially left open, and I'm editorially redirecting to First World problem on the basis of flipping a coin. This can be changed, and any relevant content merged, through further editorial action. Sandstein 19:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy of relative privation

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

Article for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Trumpetrep (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While "relative privation" seems like a recent term, it looks to me like the article was originally created with the title "Appeal to worse problems" and also describes the same concept as "whataboutery"–sense 2, as somewhat mentioned in the article's Talk page. I also believe the concept is an application of a fallacious combination of Argumentum ad misericordiam and Slippery slope (see [1]) but that's OR. Anyway, a broader sourcing search with those terms should likely turn up better support for the article's concept, although its title and lede might need some work. I should also mention that it appears "whataboutery" now redirects to "whataboutism", which is correct for sense 1 of this wiktionary entry but not sense 2, which is the one equivalent to "relative privation" and which has a cite there of a use in 1984. Metadox (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Most, if not all, of the Google hits are blogs, forum posts, user comments, and Wikipedia mirrors. I've certainly come across this personally, but I don't think reliable sources use either "relative privation" or "appeal to bigger problems" to describe it, which means this fails WP:NEO. It could be redirected somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where. Whataboutism or First World problem seem decent choices. This belongs on RationalWiki, not Wikipedia. Once it gets coverage in reliable sources, we can write an article about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Delete and Redirect to Whataboutism. This is a variant of "First World problems," ~~and a quick google search reveals several useful sources, like this and this~~. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: You should check the publisher when you quote sources from Google Books. Both of those sources that you provided are from self-published vanity presses, and they are completely unusable. Lulu.com even has an article on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate I stand corrected. It was sloppy research on my part to not check the publisher of those books; mea culpa. I did a fairly exhaustive search and I found some reliable sources that use the term (see, e.g., this Huffington Post article), but upon further reflection, it looks like there is a good chance those sources borrowed the definition form the Wikipedia article. I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of fallacies, where it is already mentioned (and, as far as I can tell, would be a fine home for it as it contains many other fallacies for which we do not have stand-alone articles). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An rare case when I believe that the third relist is aproppriate--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:OR as this is not a matter of logic, it's a value judgement. Andrew D. (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP:

I have needed this link countless times to dispel the appeal to bigger problems informal fallacy which is often waved about as a valid argument. I have seen this page referenced itself many a time on multiple discussion platforms (including Facebook).

If there is a public need and the page is being used, why delete it?

Somebody raised the issue of not all informal fallacies having their own page - perhaps this should be rectified so that they all do. Alternatively, perhaps they are not as commonly searched for or used, in which case there is no demand for individual pages.

This fallacy is completely valid as no one person has to care about one problem or the other in a mutually exclusive way. There is also the point that a worse problem of some kind will always exist at any moment in time. This does not mean we have the resources, power or singular directive to solely focus on this "one" issue over all others. All perceived problems should be considered of equal value of discussion.

86.175.78.64 (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Moved from the talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP editor: link this page instead. It's from RationalWiki. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2015 (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.