Talk:Notes from the psychoanalysis of Knut Hamsun

Suggested merge

I do not think the article can stand on its own. The publication of the notes and the notes themselves do not seem to be notable enough to warrant an article. I think SOME of the information could be added to the Knut Hamsun article, but I do not see the need for this article. Only (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This article doesn't make any coherent claim to notability. After a quick look at his enwiki article, I can see that Hamsun's pro-Nazi views and writing a newspaper eulogy for Hitler would explain public interest in his mental state, but given that a major national newspaper published the eulogy, was he really so uniquely deviant as to make his therapist's notes notable in themselves? Anyway I don't think that has been asserted here. 87.17.124.249 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - The notes are arguably notable. Arguably the notability is adequately demonstrated in the article, and the article has multiple notable sources. Hamsun was a superstar at least in Norway, as one of few Norwegians to win the Nobel Prize in literature. The mention of being "deviant" and "national newspaper" seems to be a red herring, being entered into the discussion. The major national newspaper was under full control by the occupation government - and many (or most?) major newspapers were forcibly closed down.
Why some notes, done by psychoanalysts - and these ones done during 1926-1928 - become notable, and some don't, is a separate topic - somewhat like why some people become notable, while some don't (even though on the face of things, a non-notable entity might seem to compare favorably to a notable entity). Sju hav (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)