Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affordable luxuries

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. Wifione ^Message 13:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable luxuries[edit]

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

Advertising and promotion for http://www.affordablelux.com/ - also Unreferenced. CZmarlin (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 14. Snotbot t • c » 00:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, do not delete but rather revert to its first revision as a redirect (and see the talk page as for why one editor found this unsatisfactory). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not opposed to reversion to a previous redirect, I can't really see how either of the subjective words in the title (especially in combination) could ever be quantified sufficiently to form a coherent article or even a "meaning" enough for a worthwhile redirect. We would be redirecting because it has the word "luxuries" in it, but should we then also create "unaffordable luxuries" and redirect that too? The sources don't even seem to agree on a definition and one is clearly just an advertisement for a company that offers products under the (very) broad moniker of "affordable luxuries". Who is to decide what is affordable? Who is to decide what is a luxury item? It's all very abstract and the one reliable source is basically an op-ed with the author's take on what it might mean. It sets the benchmark at US$200 - beyond the average annual wage in many 3rd world countries. Hardly affordable. So what that source would actually support is an article titled, Luxury items that could potentially be considered affordable to those living in the US with an annual household income of USD$100K or more. Yeah, no. Stalwart111 01:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've sort of revamped the page. Here's my issue: even when stated that the term is predominantly used by Western and European countries and stressing that it differs depending on the income, this is little more than a dictionary definition. It also suffers from it being a potential neologism. It's more predominantly used than other terms and has been in use since at least 2008, but it's still sort of a neologism. At the very best we might transfer something over to Wiktionary, but I'm not seeing a lot out there to merit an actual entry because it's so subjective depending on the individual. A $10 dinner isn't an "affordable luxury" to someone in Africa or even to some living in the United States.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a definition. Affordable luxuries are luxuries that are affordable, to a nebulous someone somewhere. Wikipedia can't afford it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply the lexical sum-of-its-parts. Per the article affordable luxuries are "non-necessary items" (i.e. luxuries) "that will fit into a person's daily budget" (i.e. are affordable). Pointing out that the phrase is mostly used in Europe and is only vaguely defined does not rescue it from being a dictionary definition. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2013 (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.