Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
reply |
Reply |
||
Line 49:
:::There are a number of critiques of Rand's value theory. You claim that there are sprinkles from her supporters, but that shows an ignorance of the sources that I've quoted; the essay in ''The Philosophical Thoughts of Ayn Rand'' is ''critical'' of the Objectivist theory of value (it's called 'Life and the Theory of Value: The Randian Argument Reconsidered', by J. Charles King; if I had a copy, I'd give it as much space in this article as I have Rand's own work). Others that have published critiques of the theory include [[David D. Friedman]], who is most certainly not an Objectivist (and used to battle [[Jimmy Wales]], who is an Objectivist, on Usenet groups, back in the day). [[User:Bastin8/Signature|Bastin]] 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Of course there are many critiques. But look at the articles. [Objectivist theory of value] contains 18 footnotes, of which all but 2 are directly from Rand. [[Objectivist ethics]] contains 8, three of which are not by Rand. [[Objectivist politics]] contains 14, all from Rand. But the requirement for notability is ''secondary sources'' - that is, sources apart from Rand. ''None of the articles contains references to suitable secondary sources''. If you wish to avoid AfDs you need to provide suitable evidence of noteworthiness. That has not been done. If you have the critiques, use them in the articles! [[User:Banno|Banno]] 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::And if I don't have the critiques to hand right now - and I don't - the article should be deleted? That's an absurd position. What needs to be established is notability, and that is proven by the existence of sources, not by the use of sources; I have shown they exist, and therefore, shown the subject's notability. What you are saying is that every user has to have every book in the world, every journal ever published, and have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Internet's content on every subject. That's an unfair position to hold, and entirely against the principles of [[WP:NN]], which state that the subject must have ''received'' coverage from those sources, and not necessarily have those sources cited.
:::::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)
| |||