Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Ayn Rand


 * 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   no consensus. —  Aitias  // discussion 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On Ayn Rand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

the article consists of two snippets from scholarly reviews, 2 reviews does not make a book notable, neither does 10. the book is not notable, it is a minor work. perhaps in 30 years it will be major, but until then it is not notable. --Buridan (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The general notability guideline asserts that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Would the nominator care to explain how the references in the article are not reliable or independent, or how the coverage is not significant according to Wikipedia convention? Skomorokh  15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. No opinion on the current version. The specific notability guideline for books requires, not only third party sources, but also that at least one of the sources be a "general interest" publication.  Neither Teaching Philosophy nor The Review of Metaphysics sound like that.  Also, without the blurb-like review excerpts, the article has very minimal content, which suggests that the instant article is using Wikipedia as a free web host for promotional purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The guideline does not require that the book needs coverage in a general interest publication: please see the academic books segment. Even ignoring that, meeting the general notability guideline is sufficient for a topic to merit an article. Skomorokh  15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the book mentioned, as is Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, in Ayn Rand's page. I'm not sure that there's enough separate material here apart from the blurb excerpts to justify a separate article, though.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the potential or current state of the On Ayn Rand article? Skomorokh  17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article describes the book as a 104 page introduction to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. No, I'm not deeply impressed by its potential for expansion.  To the extent that it is an accurate account, it's redundant to existing articles.  I will be perfectly honest about my biases: the depth of Wikipedia's coverage pf Ayn Rand and her followers tends to create the misleading impression that she is an important philosopher, when in fact Rand is a rather minor and unoriginal figure by the judgment of the large majority of academic philosophers.  "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is."  Also note that the article's author is Agotthelf, apparently the author.  This raises conflict of interest issues born out by the promotional blurbs in the article itself.  (He apparently has not been notified of this AfD.  I will fix.)  While no doubt Prof. Gotthelf could make valuable contributions to our coverage of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, he would appear here to be tooting his own horn. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I can see the argument that this particular article might not grow beyond a stub; there could be room for a version of Bibliography of work on Objectivism with weightier prose. I can also agree that Rand is disproportionately covered relative to other philosophers (due IMO to the demographic similarity between those drawn to Objectivism and editing Wikipedia), but your conclusion is backward. We ought to be striving to expand our coverage of undercovered fields; there are dozens of notable topics in the secondary literature of philosophers like Deleuze, à Kempis, Husserl and so on. Rendering our coverage of Objectivism less comprehensive in order to even things out is cutting off the encyclopaedias nose to spite its face. Skomorokh  18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Starting the ladder anew) Your point on the expandability of our coverage of non-Randian philosophers is well taken. Still, all this stub is telling me is that this small book is an introduction to Rand and her Objectivism.  Unless the book becomes notable by advancing new interpretations of Rand and her philosophy, and the perspicuity of those new interpretations is recognized by neutral third parties, I don't see it as meriting an independent article.  To the extent that it's a good introduction to Rand's own thought, it becomes a bad subject for an independent article: any expansion of the article would be a rehash of Objectivism, because that's what's in it.  Again, no secret about my bias.  I take my basic ethics from Jesus, and my sense of the limitations of human reason from Arthur Schopenhauer.  Rand's unintentionally instructive biography suggests Schopenhauerian themes that the rigors of lofty rationality are a mask that conceals the face of animal Will.  That said, we should be delighted to have a published academic Rand expert as a contributor.  But I don't see this article to ever have much potential to be anything other than a promotional stub.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote. Thanks to Skomorokh's heroic edits over the past couple days, it no longer reads like a promotional piece.  His text establishes that this book has had some impact in the circle of Rand scholars.  This still seems a fairly slender thread to hang notability on, but that may just be my bias talking. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep this nomination just proves that any article, no matter how well referenced, can be deleted by editors who have done nothing to improve the article before nominating the article for deletion, in violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE. In addition to the already well referenced article, I found 6 google book references to this book. Ikip (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Dr. Gotthelf has written several introductory books on philosophy, and this book would properly be placed under his article Allan_Gotthelf. The book, as a single item, does not meet notability on its own, alas, and the content might well be merged as noted.  Note that this is specifically not proposing deletion. Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate as to how the topic fails the notability guidelines? "Just not notable" rationales tend to be discounted by closing administrators. Regards, Skomorokh  18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The book could also be merged into the Ayn Rand or Objectivism (Ayn Rand) articles. Idag (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete A GoogleScholar search for this book returns only 18 hits, none of which are from major sources. I don't think this coverage is significant enough to make this subject notable, though I would support merging some of this information into another article. Idag (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete best merged into another article -- Snowded   TALK  20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Notable book. I hope whoever closes this carefully reads the comments. Believing this subject should be merged into another article or thinking there is too much coverage of Ayn Rand related subjects are not justifications for deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it notable? Idag (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It meets the general notability guideline, Wikipedia's fundamental standard of inclusion. Examine the references - this is not even remotely ambiguous. Skomorokh  22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The pertinent policy requires the following:
 * "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience."
 * There are only five separate references in the article. Three of those references are book reviews.  Another reference mentions this book tangentially.  The only reference to provide an, arguably, significant coverage of the book is Ryan, and that reference is a criticism of the book.  Therefore, this book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works (at least that's my understanding of the policy). Idag (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip's link, earlier on this page, contradicts that assertion. arimareiji (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't meet any of the criteria listed on Notability (books). RMHED . 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to meet 1, 3, and 4. And only needs to meet one of the criteria. It's been covered substantially by reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Much of the criticism from editors on various Wikipedia articles relating to Rand or Objectivism have to do with a lack of academic or scholarly work on Rand. We should be welcoming these additions - particularly with the heavy traffic seen on pages relating to Rand and Objectivism.  This book meets several of the specified requirements (see section on Academic books and it is a significant addition for the Objectivit movement.)  Also, Allan Gotthelf is emeritus professor of philosophy at The College of New Jersey and visiting professor of history and philosophy of science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he has held the University's Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism since 2003 - this information is available from his Wikipedia page.  His stature as an expert on Rand gives this book standing as per Wikipedia policy on notability for academics.  See Google scholar for information on his books on Aristotle, or his contribution to the Wadsworth series on philosophers. --Steve (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Idag. I don't read this as meeting WP:BOOK or even coming close. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment' This is not a afd related to Ayn Rand, it is about the merits of this book and this book alone. Please provide arguments relating to the notability of this book, if there is any, currently it is pretty far down the non-notable pile, and saying it is about Rand isn't really making a case as notability does not transfer. --Buridan (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Skomorokh has made some fairly substantial edits to the article, trying to make a case that it is notable.  He's removed the blurby quotes, and his version essentially establishes that this is a book about Rand's philosophy by a Rand scholar, that has been reviewed by other Rand scholars.  Whether this meets the books notability guideline is the current issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ikip's link and Idag's policy quote wrt book notability. ("The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience.") arimareiji (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Ayn Rand. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ayn Rand or Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Unlike the nominator, I don't expect that minor books on a currently-popular minor philosopher will become "major" "perhaps in 30 years". The COI issue also indicates a non-notable work, as does the tarting-up with review links. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Either to Ayn Rand or Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), per previous two editors.  Chicken Wing (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not critical of Objectivism and would not make more than half a line in the Rand article; merging makes very little sense. Skomorokh  19:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it doesn't appear to merit much more than a couple of lines in another article, anyway. "Someone wrote X(source), however, others have been (criticism) of that analysis.(source), (source)."  That's probably all that needs to be said.  Chicken Wing (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup; anything more would be undue emphasis on a minor work. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, which makes it a little disingenuous to call your proposal(s) merge. Skomorokh  19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you on that one, but attacking my motivations isn't going to persuade me. I'm willing to entertain other ideas, but I would prefer not to be attacked in the process.  Chicken Wing (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Chill out, no-one is attacking anyone. To use the term merge in an AfD context connotes an intention to see the material in question kept (albeit at a different location), which would not be the case here as practically none of it would be preserved. Skomorokh  20:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm chilled, but you said "disingenuous", which implies a lack of candor (straight from the dictionary). I'm not trying to deceive anyone.  I'm just trying to preserve the parts of the article that might be useful.  There is a selective merger process, also.  A merger doesn't mean the entire contents of the page have to be removed.  I probably could have more accurately just voted to delete the page and mentioned that many a line or two could be saved, but I wasn't trying to deceive anyone through a lack of candor, which is the meaning "disingenuous" carries.  Chicken Wing (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no room in the Ayn Rand article to merge coverage of every book that covers her. But at least the merge voters realize that it isn't appropriate to delete articles on notable books. This isn't some self-published myspace work. How on earth would deletion make the encyclopedia better? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Editor:Skomorokh's comments, Editor:ikip's link establishing considerable coverage at a reliable source, and Editor:Steve's establishing the prominence of the author. --Buster7 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per improvements and sourcing since original nomination. Kudos to all those that made contributions that Improve Wikipedia. Well done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet WP:BOOK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick.
 * AfD hero (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Objectivism This is nothing more than a couple of paragraphs from the "criticism" section of that article. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you link to a disambiguation page. Secondly, there is no "criticism" section in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. Thirdly, this article does not take content from any other page on Wikipedia, but is rather written from the secondary sources it cites. Skomorokh  00:34, 14 February 2009 (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.