Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist politics


 * 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. Carlossuarez46 05:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Objectivist politics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

article is original research, lacks notability, concept is not frequently used either in academic or regular circles, does not cite secondary authors to establish notability, cannot be substantively improved because it really does not seem to exist in popular or academic usage Buridan 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC) *Strong Keep The article is sourced on the most reliable source available: published non-fiction. The sources are 'directly related to the topic of article'. My point is that the article is in no way origninal research. The article relies on reliable, published primary sources. The books authored by Ayn Rand alone are non-trivial and therefore supply significant coverage of the topic in detail. The rationale for the nomination is simply wrong. Karbinski 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Karbinski 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. --EAEB 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article as written is entirely OR based strictly on Ayn Rand's writings, and is therefore reliant on primary sourcing. There are substantial references to objectivist politics in the outside world, mostly related to libertarianism, and I would have no objection if the article was recast to include those lines of thinking. Right now the article does not appear to be salvageable without wholesale pruning and re-referencing.  Time for someone else to try again..   Acroterion  (talk)  15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is part of a series of articles on Rand's material. They rely on much the same set of references from Rand herself. The problem for each is that it fails to demonstrate the notability of the topic in accord with Notability. This could be done by providing references to secondary sources that discuss critically (in the English sense in which criticism is not always negative) the specific topic of the article. If, for example, WikiProject Objectivism took this up as a priority, we could leave the articles to develop. Otherwise, delete as per nom. Banno 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Objectivism is based primarily on Ayn Rand's philosophy, thus it's unsurprising it relies largely on primary sources. Even the main article notes the hostility the philosophy faces in academia. May qualify as WP:OR as a result. However, it seems accurate for the views of Objectivists, and is well done. Move to Wikibooks and allow users to put out a nice collection of Objectivist applications. Unless secondary sources can be found obviously.Horrorshowj 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the rationale is that it is original research bodged together without any secondary citations, without any significant citations beyond the author being researched and presented. there is no evidence of notability provided in the article beyond the notability of the author cited, who already has many articles, perhaps this could be merged into one of those, else it should be deleted.--Buridan 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it should be no problem to establish notability by providing citations to secondary sources. Banno 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Although I disagree with the notion the article as a whole is original research, I am convinced that the central article on Objectivism offers sufficient encyclopedic content for this topic.Karbinski 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment there appears to be an inconsistent between the strong Delete vote here and the lack of consensus on Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value. Banno 20:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment you put that up as notability, this is up as original research and notability, and not cited appropriately, etc. etc.--Buridan 21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No independent reliable sources means no way to satisfy WEIGHT or avoid OR. It also means this article fails notability. Cool Hand Luke 03:40, 5 September 2007 (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.