Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The recommendations are split three ways with no useful way to read them together. -Splashtalk 18:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Author of book admits it's a summary of Objectivism. Thus, all content can go into the articles on Objectivism or on Leonard Peikoff. --zenohockey 22:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiable, relatively notable bit of non-fiction. Peikoff was sort of her number two as far as I understand--his books deserve articles even if already mentioned on his page. Marskell 23:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Leonard Peikoff. What Marskell states is accurate, but there is nothing to say about this book that wouldn't simply be rehashing Objectivism. The "article" is probably already as big as it would ever get. Edwardian 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand- My understanding is that this is the official argument for Objectivism and is noteworthy because of that. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just explain to me how the article can be expanded—presumably to explicate its notability apart from Objectivist philosophy—when, to quote the preface, it is "the definitive statement of Ayn Rand's philosophy—as interpreted by her best student and chosen heir" (p. xv). So yes, you're correct in that it is sort of the only real argument for Objectivism in full book-length form—but I'm not sure how many people care. --zenohockey 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [revised --zenohockey 01:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)][reply]
- Comment Reading Leonard Peikoff, it seems that Peikoff's view of Objectivism, presumably as presented in this text, is not univerally held by post-Rand Objectivists, that is it should be a subset of Objectivist philosophy. Keeping this stub article may spur some later editor to elaborate on that. FRS 04:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Content (all two lines of it) should certainly be moved to Leonard Peikoff. This will simply turn into a book review if kept, and that is not encyclopedic. Since there is already an entry under the author, why split this off? On a separate note, I would propose that individual books of philosophy merit their own page only when their importance becomes detached from that of the author (which is not the case here). Thus emblematic would be Nietszche's Also Sprach Zarathustra, while that other page turner, Hegel`s Dialectic : Five Hermeneutical Studies by Gadamer, should be listed under the author's entry. Dottore So 10:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Objectivism as a subcategory. Jtmichcock 13:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Objectivism until the material about it becomes unmanagebly long. This is a pretty well-known book, by an associate of Rand's, published in 1991 and still in print, and conceivably there could be an article about it, but there's no point in having a couple of lines about it in isolation, and if it is not merged and does grow there is an obvious danger that it could become a POV fork. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'keep' and expand, focusing in on his unique ideas, take or perspective on objectivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethie (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.