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

Revision as of 21:45, 26 August 2007

Revision as of 23:34, 26 August 2007

Line 31:

*'''Comment''' - The poor quality of the article, and the likelihood that it violates [[WP:OR]], are good reasons for deleting. However, there seems to be a very widespread misconception among WikiProject Philosophy memebers that Rand is not notable ''as a philosopher''. I find this to be patently false. Her theories are regularly discussed by people who dislike them, and Rand has been included in several anthologies of ethics and political philosophy (some of which I've cited before in these debates). Like most, I disagree with her. But I certainly don't take that as a sufficient reason to censor knowledge about her. I mean, I don't get to go around deleting articles about Kant, right? [[User:Postmodern Beatnik|Postmodern Beatnik]] 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Hopefully, the quality of the article is improving/will improve soon. I'm trying to substantiate the explanation with references from Rand's own work, with other references contextualising Rand's arguments. If I had a copy of the afore-mentioned ''Reason and Value'', this article could [[Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner|Colbert]]. If only. [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

::These comments appear to be irrelevant to the discussion here. This is not about Rand as a philosopher but the noteworthiness of this particular article. Let's stay on task. IF you think the article not worthy of inclusion, vote! [[User:Banno|Banno]] 21:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

*'''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)