Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:22, 25 August 2007

Revision as of 13:32, 25 August 2007

Line 15:

:::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].

::::The noteworthiness of the phrase "Objectivitst theory of values" is the issue here. Neither of the on-line articles you cite uses that exact phrase. I'm unable to verify the other sources. The phrase [[objectivist ethics]] is used; and there is a reference to "objectivist theory of value and life", once. But for proof of notability what is needed is a reference in a secondary source - see [[Wikipedia:Notability]]"''A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.'' [[User:Banno|Banno]] 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::The exact phrase is neither here nor there. The term 'Objectivist theory of value' is used to discriminate between the Objectivist 'theory of value' and other theories; obviously, within the framework of Objectivist studies, 'theory of value' or 'Randian theory of value' suffices to prove that such a concept exists. You might as well claim that [[Fortis (finance)|Fortis Bank]] isn't notable because no economist has ever used the exact Wikipedia title, 'Fortis (finance)', before. The name that the article uses isn't the criterion for keeping the article; the content is.

:::::Whilst I am using my own copies of Rand's works to flesh out what has been written, I don't own a copy of Reason and Value; I've read it, and can vouch for the use of the term, but I can't quote it to prove notability. However, since Rasmussen - who is independent of Rand - is now quoted to prove the existence of the subject itself, it is not dependent upon Rand herself as proof of the concept's existence. Since that is the case, AfDing without using {{tl|Notability}} is highly unorthodox and most unhelpful. [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

:::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:Mister.Manticore|Mister.Manticore]] 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::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)

:::::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)

::::::It's an ethical theory. The original author has simply ignored his or her own advice and thoroughly confused the two. The note itself was not just placed in the article at all; it was added on 12 September last year by [[User:Economizer]]. [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' or merge. This term is not used much at all, which is why i prodded it, it was disputed and banno posted it to afd. it is very clearly not notable and suspiciously like original research or a synthesis thereof.--[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 11:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)