Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (20 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''no consensus'''. [[User:Citicat|<b><span style="color:#FF0000;">Citi</span><span style="color:#151B8D;">Cat</span></b>]]<small>[[User_talk:Citicat|<sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫</sup>]]</small> 03:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
===[[Objectivist theory of value]]===
{{ns:0|S}}
:{{la|Objectivist theory of value}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 23#{{anchorencode:Objectivist theory of value}}|View log]])</noinclude>
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline [[User:Banno|Banno]] 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Hmm, it seems to be a phrase in some use [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Objectivist+theory+of+value%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search], but I don't know if it's actually a distinct concept on its own. However, if it is part of Ayn Rand's theories, it may merit merging to some ___location on her philosophy. [[User:
::Search for '"Objectivist theory of value" + rand' instead[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Objectivist+theory+of+value%22+%2B+rand&btnG=Search]. That the phrase is sometimes used does not mean that folk are talking about Rand's notion. This is not a notable topic. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Indeed, I didn't find anything convincing myself, however, I don't presume a google search is complete, and there may be other sources beyond my knowledge. Thus I bring out the issue for others to address. It is used, so it doesn't not exist, thus I'm waiting to see if somebody can make an argument as to it being notable or distinct on its own. [[User:
*'''Merge''' somewhere? Also, is this just some Rand follower's synthesis of ideas, or is it an actual concept with philosophical currency? -[[User:Apollo58|Apollo58]] 17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::Merge to where? The phrase is not used in any of the usual philosophical references. See the talk page for an admision that the material is a [[Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position|synthesis]]. The basis for this AfD is not that the content is OR, but that it is not notable. That is, it's not that the article is an invention of the author, but that the specific topic is not sufficiently notable to have an article of it's own. The article is not redeemable. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. There is quite a lot of work on the issue, in both journals and books, and is the area within Objectivism in which Douglas Rasmussen specialises. ''The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies'' (yes, it exists) covers this issue repeatedly, both in passing and in dedication. ''The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand'' dedicates a chapter to 'Life and the Theory of Value' from the Objectivist viewpoint. And so on. [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::Do you have anymore sources as to the term "theory of value" as found in works on Rand or Objectivists? It might be appropriate to rename this article to "Theory of Value (Objectivism)" instead. [[User:
:::The term is used frequently throughout Objectivist literature, both by Rand (''[http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931 Virtue of Selfishness]'') and by others (''[http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Value-Aristotle-versus-Rand/dp/1577240456 Reason and Value]''). In online sources, you can see its use less commonly, but it is used in (for example) [http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn025.pdf this paper published by the Libertarian Alliance], [http://www.atlassociety.org/GS07syl3.pdf this Atlas Society seminar].
Line 20 ⟶ 28:
:::It should be titled as it currently is; it isn't a concept unique to Objectivism, but an Objectivist theory of the concept analagous to other theories (see [[Subjective theory of value]], [[Intrinsic theory of value]], etc). [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 10:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
::::No, I'm not seeing that as quite analogous as in each of those cases, the primary word itself isn't to whatever group is expressing it, but rather that the theory of value is being expressed as subjective or intrinsic. (And note, [[Objective theory of value]] redirects to intrinsic already. Now your sources may indicate that there is indeed a theory of value in Rand's philosophy, so there may be something worked out there. A few other sources may help though. [[User:
::::::I am currently attempting to add sources. However, the abrupt manner in which Banno and Buridan have prosecuted the deletion of this article is hardly conducive to finding more sources. [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Well, there is a reason why AFD is a five day process, and as far as it goes, there's not looking like much consensus to delete here. So it'll probably be shelved for further consideration/improvement. [[User:
:::::Nor does what was said here mesh with the new note just placed on the article: "This is not to be confused with theories of economic value, which seek to explain why things have different market prices". Is this an ethical theory, an economic theory, a part of Rand's ruminations, or an invention of the editor? [[User:Banno|Banno]] 13:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 38 ⟶ 46:
*'''Comment'''. Banno inserted a POV description promoting his nomination into {{tl|PhilosophyTasks}}, which I've now NPOV. Poor show! [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
: I Stated that it was "Rand material claiming to be a theory of value". I guess that might be construed as POV, but it is worth pointing out in the context that the theory is from Rand. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
::Possibly, but I would consider it important to make sure you are remaining neutral in what you're notifying folks about. The task list is at least reasonably neutral, but it's important to be very careful in what you say. Right now, I think it's neutral enough, but I can see where the original version was troubling. If there are people who say delete simply because they disapprove of Rand's theories, that's a problem in itself. Me, I think Rand is three-steps past raving loon, but that's not a deletion reason. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote. You may wish to modify your comment above as well. [[User:
:::Why should I change my comment above? I've been very clear with the reasons for deletion I have listed. The topic is not notable. I would ask the closing admin to ignore anyone who says that the page should be deleted because it is written by Rand, but I think that they are competent enough to do this themselves. As you say, this is not a vote. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Because you were asking people to vote, but AFD is not a vote, but rather a discussion. Yet you said "IF you think the article not worthy of inclusion vote!" which pretty much strikes me as a request to vote. Especially since the request is hardly neutral on its own. Not a great problem, but a bad habit to get into. It's hard enough not thinking of this process as a voting one, let alone encouraging it. [[User:
:::::You confuse my post at {{tl|PhilosophyTasks}} with my reply to [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]]. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::No, I'm not. I know they're different. My responses to that notice are above in my initial reply. This is about the *other* section of my response, which was concerning your remark here. Were you confused? [[User:
:::::::I don't think it is I who is confused. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::If you thought I was mixing up the two statements, you were. The one was perhaps a bit less neutral than it should have been, the other was an encouragement to participate that I feel was poorly worded. Since you did reword your statement on the task list, I feel it might also have been advisable to modify the one here. If you think I'm confused about something, please tell me what. [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube]] 23:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This process has resulted in some improvement in the article. Nice work, Bastin8. No consensus has been reached here, but I still think the article is problematic. It might be worth considering a merge to [[Objectivist ethics]]. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 00:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I was going to nominate objectivist ethics and politics because those are not used popularly or in scholarly media. they seem to be neologisms created to capture and redescribe a bit of objectivist ideology. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 53 ⟶ 63:
:::::Your nonsense about all the article not having any suitable sources is ridiculous. O'Neil and Rasmussen are most certainly independent and reliable. I have cited two suitable sources, and named a number of others, including critiques. It seems as though your inherent bias against Objectivism leads you to believe that anyone that gives Rand the time of day is he lackey. [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 09:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::That's the policy. take it up on the policy page. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. We don't always need to follow "policy" but can at times, bend and ignore it, where appropriate. That's the point where policy meets practice or practicality. In this case, it might be more practical to give the page time for clean-up and improvement and address it later. If there's some disagreement as to whether something merits an article, it doesn't cause a problem for the article to remain around while there's not a consensus to delete. Otherwise it wouldn't be the default action. [[User:
(continued) Of course. A large part of the advantage that accrues to the encyclopaedia from the deletion process is the improvement of the articles that results from them being listed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objectivist_theory_of_value&diff=153832987&oldid=152501401]. The improvements are pleasing, but not sufficient for me to withdraw the request for deletion, because the notability of the topic remains to be demonstrated within the article. But that is not a problem for the editors, since there is no consensus to delete. I suggest that this AfD now be closed with the conclusion: no consensus. Does anyone object? [[User:Banno|Banno]] 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::I certainly don't, I'm certainly not convinced to keep, but I'm not concerned about the subject of the article being any kind of problem, so it's one of the many things that can be tabled and considered again at a later date. [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube]] 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' 'Verifiable' and 'reliable' sources exist for the content of this article. The sources in use, according to the example given in [[WP:NN]] for <nowiki>'Significant Coverage'</nowiki>, are significant. As far as the sourced content is concerned, there is no way it is original research. However, despite not being original-research, its content should be merged with sections in other articles such as Hume and Objectivism. Although the theory is essential to Objectivism, I don't think it is essential to wikipedia as a separate article. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Karbinski|Karbinski]] ([[User talk:Karbinski|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Karbinski|contribs]]) 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Keep''' - Referent aside, the concept is well-known in the context of Objectivism, as Bastin shows. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:XDanielx|xDanielx]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub> 06:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
<hr style="width:50%;"/>
:<span style="color:Chocolate;">'''Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.'''</span><br/><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Citicat|<b><span style="color:#FF0000;">Citi</span><span style="color:#151B8D;">Cat</span></b>]]<small>[[User_talk:Citicat|<sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫</sup>]]</small> 02:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
* '''Strong keep''' Detailed, referenced article on key tenet of noteworthy thought from noteworthy thinker. [[User:Joestella|Joestella]] 08:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and merge useful content elsewhere. The phrase is mention in [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=133467 this abstract]. I've seen it used only one other time, in Environmental Ethics in the context of "an objectivist theory of value in nature." The topic does not meet [[WP:N]]. The article seems more about ''The philosophic thoughts of [[Ayn Rand]] on objectivist theory of value.'' With Rand predominating the topic, the topic still does not meet [[WP:N]] since the [[WP:RS|source material]] is not indpenendent of rand. Also, we already have enough articles and other material on Ayn Rand: [[Ayn Rand]], [[Ayn Rand Institute]], [[Bibliography_of_work_on_Objectivism#Works_by_Ayn_Rand|Bibliography of work on Objectivism - Works by Ayn Rand]], [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)]], [[Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality]], [[Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand]], [[Randian hero]], [[Randism]], [[The Ayn Rand Collective]], [[The Ayn Rand Column]], [[The Ayn Rand Letter]], [[The Ayn Rand Lexicon]], [[The Early Ayn Rand]], [[The Passion of Ayn Rand]], [[:Category:Ayn Rand characters]], [[:Category:Books by Ayn Rand]], and [[:Template:AynRand]]. -- <span style="font-family:Kristen ITC;">'''[[User:Jreferee|<span style="color:Blue;">Jreferee</span>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Jreferee|Talk]])''</sup></span> 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with [[Objectivist ethics]]. [[User:Lurker|<span style="background-color:lightblue;color:black">Lurker</span>]] ([[User talk:Lurker|said]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Lurker|done]]) 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I don't agree with the whole Rand movement, but I cannot deny its notability, etc. [[User:Gregbard|Gregbard]] 08:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The article has been improved. As it is notable according to [[WP:NN]] it likely should have been tagged for requiring citations instead of being nominated for deletion in the first place. The rationale for having the article deleted is more blunt on the article's talk page: x number of hits in a google search means afd. I suggest reading the [[WP:ATA]] page. [[User:Karbinski|Karbinski]] 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||