Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 8:
:::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:Mister.Manticore|Mister.Manticore]] 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''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)
| |||