Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Resentment (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 merge to The Western Canon. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

School of Resentment
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page about a concept in the humanities fails the WP:GNG, as it shows no sign of independent or secondary sourcing. The article's references consist entirely of primary "scholarship" pushing a dubious historiographic conceit. Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * merge to The Western Canon, as the article on that book, which is where Bloom expounds the idea, only brushes upon it briefly. The idea attracted attention (one presumes largely negative from one side an laudatory from the other— this is Harold Bloom we're talking about) but while there are a number of scholarly hits on the idea, it doesn't appear to be something that others took and ran with. Mangoe (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As nominator I would be fine with this merge, and even a redirect, but I'm not willing to dredge through the article to find salvageable nuggets, myself. Newimpartial (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Bloom's term is the subject of continuing scholarly comment, analysis, and debate. This makes it a notable concept separate from the book where it was first introduced. It easily passes the requirements of GNG in that even a cursory Google Scholar search discloses significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.  WP:BEFORE seems to have been truncated in this regard for this nomination.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How do any of the linked sources meet WP:SIGCOV? What I see are passing mentions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not passing mentions, or else I would not have characterized them as "significant". They are scholarly articles and the Krajca and BØrch articles in particular are entirely about engaging with Bloom's ideas. The irony that Bloom's pejorative label for post-modernistic literary critique only seems to have generated further post-modernist critique is likely not lost on anyone but the opacity of such writing does not obscure entirely that Bloom's idea does meet GNG beyond its original mention.   Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the Krajca and BØrch pieces again, neither of them engages more than superficially with the term/concept "Schools of Resentment". The question for this AfD is not "does any of the critical reception of Bloom name-check the article title" but rather "is there significant, reliably sourced coverage of the topic that an article can be written based on independent sources?" The answer is, no. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to The Western Canon: Keep: I actually think this is genuinely borderline between a keep and a merge and redirect to The Western Canon, but I am leaning ever-so-slightly towards keep. I do not agree that subsequent engagement with this idea has been limited to name checks and passing mentions. It's in the title and main framing of some academic articles like this one, the author of this book explicitly identifies it as the main focus of an entire section of the book, searching in newspaper archives (paywalled, but I'll be happy to share sources on request) I found articles that deal primarily with this idea in newspapers from Colombo to Melbourne to Edmonton over several decades. There's enough to pass GNG and satisfy WP:NEO. But here's where I'm uncertain. It is very often discussed in the context of discussions about The Western Canon; usually it's a big part of that discussion, but is still situated within or closely connected to a broader discussion of that work. I could probably be convinced that it is a neologism that should be a big part of that book's page, rather than existing as a separate standalone page. - Astrophobe  (talk)
 * Re: it is a neologism that should be a big part of that book's page, rather than existing as a separate standalone page - exactly that. It is AFAIK only discussed in the context of The Western Canon (book); I've gone looking for central concepts of other philosophical or critical works that have been spun off into their own articles, but the only one I've found so far is the Original position which has received much more and also higher level discussion than School of resentment. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair point. I wouldn't object at all if either keep or merge was a result of this AfD, I think this is one situation where it's not obvious how to best follow policy. - Astrophobe  (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I went back and looked at the sourcing again and I am convinced by the argument that, if any in-depth discussion of the school of resentment is pretty much always a subset of a larger discussion about the The Western Canon, then a discussion of it belongs on that page. - Astrophobe  (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to The Western Canon per the analysis of the available sourcing above, and the general idea that we write about what things are rather than what they're called. "Schools of Resentment" would be a viable entry in a hypothetical Glossary of Cultural and Literary-Theoretic Traditionalism, but it seems a poor topic for an encyclopedia article, whereas discussing the influence of a book is a good thing for an encyclopedia article on that book to do. Keeping it within the article on the book might also help keep a lid on synthesis (Similar critical arguments have been made by others, without necessarily using the term...). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Keep - Leftists want to censor and hide any information that exposes their ulterior motives. typical. Matthew 10:47 Central time 2/10/21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6042:B:9C4:5D98:8C14:14C5 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Love it or hate it, it is an important and notable notion of Harold Bloom. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Merge to The Western Canon per comments by User:XOR. This is unlikely to grow but plausible search term. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 23:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The difficulty with merging is the The Western Canon is a slender article consisting of little more than chapter headings. Perhaps merge the other way? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Perhaps from a content standpoint that would be easier, but The Western Canon is a clear Notability pass based on reviews, while the Notability of the "School of Resentment" is dubious at best. So regardless of which text an editor starts with for the Merge, the redirect should point to the book title and not the other way around. Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.