Deletion of First World Problems

Comment: but needs work.  http://www.google.com/search?q=%22first+world+problem%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.debian:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a 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 ew Article Problem.  This one hasn't stood even for a day yet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as soft, fluffy, POV-pushing neologism-cruft.  Also, warn or block any users who turn out to be connected to http://board.crewcial.org/topic/204876/&r=&images=1 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:MEAT)

Comment: At best, this is the start of a very earnest essay full of |original research. At worst, it's utterly pointless
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: A garbage article that blows holes through  and .  No reliable sources to back up assertion that this is a "current phrase," complete synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V)