Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism by country


 * 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. Based on the discussion, there does not seem to be enough discussion on "how objectivism manifests itself by country" to justify an article on it, and merely listing objectivist sources that discuss its occurrence in a given country is WP:NOR. Nothing mergeworthy so delete it is Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Objectivism by country

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears not to satisfy WP:GNG, and also appears to be promotional in nature. This reads as a combination of improper synthesis, original research, and unencyclopedic details supported by non-independent sources, mostly by the Ayn Rand Institute, whose mission is to promote objectivism around the world. At best this content should be merged into Objectivism (Ayn Rand). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Objectivist movement, which is the article that discusses the groups and people that spread this ideology. Movement activities in specific countries mostly seem not very notable (the exceptions have their own articles), and the relevant content could easily be included in the larger article about the movement. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's material worth merging, but you're right, if we're going to merge, then Objectivist movement would be a better candidate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Objectivism is a worldview that has a worldwide following. Yes, in some countries, it may be very small, like merely a college club; however, in others, it has a notable following. I will edit this article to make it focused only on the countries that there is a notable following. That is the solution, not the deletion of the article. This article should exist in the same way that Christianity by country and Judaism by country exist. Michipedian (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Christianity by country and Judaism by country are based on reliable, independent secondary sources. Objectivism by country is not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - no significant in-depth coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; plagued by unavoidable WP:SYNTH issues. Any content that might fit here may fit within Objectivist movement or Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Neutralitytalk 19:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Arguably this article might be seen as a list of countries in which there is an Objectivist presence. If viewed that way, it does not seem to satisfy our notability criteria for lists, as I don't believe there are any reliable, independent secondary sources discussing these countries as a set. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about these?
 * - http://www.businessinsider.com/ayn-rand-interest-around-the-world-map-2016-4
 * - http://www.seiercapital.com/looking-deepen-understanding-objectivist-philosophy-ari-europe/
 * Michipedian (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first is just Google Trends search results for "ayn rand". Not about Objectivism. (Possibly the lamest "news" story I've ever seen, and does not it doesn't say anything about Objectivism. I have Ayn Rand on my bookshelf and have googled her before; that doesn't make me an Objectivist.) The second source is an Ayn Rand Institute press release; not independent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will do my best to locate some sources as soon as possible. Michipedian (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article contains useful and important information not available elsewhere. KyZan (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)KyZan
 * If that's the case it would be a violation of WP:OR and that content should be removed. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Inappropriate article with respect to both notability and OR.  DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: How about these sources?
 * Czech Republic
 * This article from Reflex references Yaron Brook's visit to the Czech Republic to meet with leaders to discuss economic and political issues.
 * Israel
 * This article from The Jerusalem Post references the Ayn Rand Center Israel, its Israeli founder Boaz Arad, and its Atlas Award, presented annually at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
 * This article from Haaretz is about Benjamin Netanyahu reading John David Lewis, an Objectivist scholar.
 * New Zealand
 * This article from The Standard, a New Zealand-based blog site, is about a man who is raising his child as an Objectivist.
 * This article from Scoop is by Lindsay Perigo, a New Zealand Objectivist, and references the New Zealand Objectivist website Objectivism.org.nz.
 * Poland
 * This article from Najwyższy Czas! references the Polish Objectivist website Obiektywizm.pl and their event at the Warsaw School of Economics.
 * United Kingdom
 * This article from the Adam Smith Institute references the Institute's Ayn Rand lecture.
 * I have more to come, but feedback on these would be good. Also, a general question: are websites like Meetup and Facebook that show the presence of Objectivist groups in certain areas considered reliable secondary sources? My assumption would be no, but I figured I would ask. Michipedian (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Poland
 * This article from Najwyższy Czas! references the Polish Objectivist website Obiektywizm.pl and their event at the Warsaw School of Economics.
 * United Kingdom
 * This article from the Adam Smith Institute references the Institute's Ayn Rand lecture.
 * I have more to come, but feedback on these would be good. Also, a general question: are websites like Meetup and Facebook that show the presence of Objectivist groups in certain areas considered reliable secondary sources? My assumption would be no, but I figured I would ask. Michipedian (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This article from the Adam Smith Institute references the Institute's Ayn Rand lecture.
 * I have more to come, but feedback on these would be good. Also, a general question: are websites like Meetup and Facebook that show the presence of Objectivist groups in certain areas considered reliable secondary sources? My assumption would be no, but I figured I would ask. Michipedian (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Intrigued by a comment above, I looked up 'how many Objectivsts are there?'.  I learned that it's a deliberately structureless political philosophy with a small number of adherents and an unknown / uncountable number of "followers", if that's even the word.  How do you verifiably source an article on the worldwide influence of a frame of mind?  I don't think you can.  --Lockley (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of the term Objectivism in the article title refers to Objectivism as a formal movement, not as an ideology per se. Perhaps it would be better titled, "Objectivist movement by country". It is also neither structureless nor primarily political. I'm curious where you found that alleged information. Michipedian (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Does Ayn Rand count as an authority? "I want, therefore, to make it emphatically clear that Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone." From “A Statement of Policy,” The Objectivist, June 1968, p. 471.  --Lockley (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a good point. Perhaps 'formal movement' was the wrong terminology. 'Intellectual movement' might be better, but then that goes to your point, how does one measure that? I guess self-professed Objectivists and those who claim to be influenced by Rand would be one measure. The activities of the Ayn Rand Institute might be another. Michipedian (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Easy. You'd just need reliable sources discussing how this frame of mind / movement has spread across the world to the listed countries. But we don't have that, so this list of countries doesn't merit an article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How about moving any content of worth in here to an "International" section on the Objectivist movement page? Michipedian (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Just be sure to comply with our No original research policy and focus primarily on secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Michipedian (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While we are having the conversation, we may want to address the existence of the three following articles: Objectivism in Canada, Objectivism in India, and Objectivism in the United States. I created the articles on Canada and the United States but not the one on India. I admit that I do not think that either the articles on Canada or the United States offers any information that is not or could not be included in Objectivist movement or the Ayn Rand Institute. I created those articles because I saw the article on India and figured that other articles should follow suit for other countries, but maybe the information in the India article should have just been condensed and combined into the Objectivist movement page, as well. Michipedian (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing those out. I think they should both be deleted on the same grounds. (Objectivism in India appears to be different because the article cites secondary sources that discuss Objectivism in India.) If you don't object I will prod both articles so they don't have to go through the same discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I am more so asking: why does Objectivism in India have its own article on it? Couldn't some of that information be consumed into an "International" section on the Objectivist movement page, as well? Some of the information on that page is only about Google search results. Michipedian (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that the India article cites reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss Objectivism in India, but now that I look a bit into the sources I see that might not be the case. More analysis is needed to assess whether that article satisfies WP:GNG. If you want to keep discussing, this, I'm happy to do so at Talk:Objectivism in India. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOR.  Dr Strauss   talk  07:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge sourced discussion of international Objectivism to Objectivist movement. No objection to Dr. Fleischman's PRODs. FourViolas (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice to redirecting at some point to an "International" section of Objectivism, once it exists. The sources identified by Michipedian identify that there are Objectivists in those countries, but they're not reliable articles that discuss any particularly distinctive national variants of objectivism in those countries.  Merely having a grab-bag of "here is an article on Objectivism from Country X, and here is another article about Objectivism from Country Y", and putting that into an article of this form would be WP:SYNTH.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC).


 * Delete for original research/synthesis and failing significant coverage, hence GNG, as well as failing Stand-alone lists, if viewed as a list. --Bejnar (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete satisfies with above discussion. No need for it.Light2021 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), to be followed by a merge and redirect with Objectivist movement. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  00:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * {Ping|timtempleton}} What is there to merge given the low quality of the references, and what value is the redirect? --Bejnar (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a merge, the redirect needs to be retained in order to maintain attribution under the CC licence. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC).
 * I see nothing appropriate to merge. Any data mined from the cited sources would have to be rewritten to fit the other article, so there is no CC license problem. --Bejnar (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2017 (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.