Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Reply |
|||
Line 52:
:::::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)
:::::::That's the policy. take it up on the policy page. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
| |||