Deletion of Western guilt (concept)

Comment: Performing a web search on a phrase and quoting the single occurrence of that phrase in a dozen books and articles is not a sound basis for an encyclopedia article. There has been no significant coverage of the concept of "Western guilt", which is why the subject fails the notability requirements. I recommend that editors read :Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary sources say {{em|about}} the term or concept, not just sources {{em|that use}} the term {{crossref|(see use–mention distinction)}}. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require |analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the |original research policy.Unfortunately, this is a compilation of sources that use the term "Western guilt" without a single source '''''about''''' "Western guilt". —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:AEIS||WP:OR)

Comment: There ''may'' be a notable encyclopaedic topic lurking here in the form of https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=postcolonial+guilt postcolonial guilt. Some of the references might also be salvaged for white guilt. But in its current form, this article consists entirely of politically-slanted original |synthesis that needs to be |blown up and started over. {{u|E.M.Gregory}}'s approach to sourcing clearly leaves a lot to be desired―there's a lot of keyword-search cherry picking, misrepresentation of what the sources say, and poor citation practices (e.g. broken links, unnecessary links to paywalls, citations to books without page references) that make verification difficult―but he is often successful in producing a ''veneer'' of thorough research that passes a casual inspection. I'd therefore second {{u|TheGracefulSlick}} in urging editors to look closely at what the references actually say, and read the discussions on the talk page, before !voting. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:TNT)

Comment: A https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22western+guilt%22+-%22western+guilt+culture%22&oq=%22wes Google Scholar search of "Western guilt" -"western guilt culture" (which brings up too many false positives which refer to works following Ruth Benedict's classification schema), brings up 900 academic papers which use the term, and from a quick perusal of some of them, many of them do use in a cohesive way, which would point towards this meeting  (e.g. https://search.proquest.com/openview/17cba4d5993d33b03429f3aa9c0b0105/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816616\https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9121.html. Problems with articles on notable topics should be kept and the problems resolved through talk page discussion/editing, and if the synthesis is really that big of issue, cutting it down
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I have to agree that the only way this article can be improved is to |nuke it, and start over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: I never nominated this essay for deletion for cleanup or because I don't like it. Those are straw man arguments. If any of the keep !voters cared to read it, my nom statement asserts this essay falls under what |Wikipedia is not. Gregory created this personal essay by synthing together sources that sometimes use the term for different meaning and misrepresented others to push a POV. There is no established term known as "Western guilt" except in the mind of the essay's creator
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY)

Comment: as noted above, this is ''potentially'' a useful topic.  The current article though is unsalvageable .  If deleted, there should explicitly be no prejudice against the creation of a new article on the topic that follows the reliable sources on the subject more closely
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)