Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value

Objectivist theory of value

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline Banno 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, it seems to be a phrase in some use [1], but I don't know if it's actually a distinct concept on its own. However, if it is part of Ayn Rand's theories, it may merit merging to some location on her philosophy. Mister.Manticore 03:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search for '"Objectivist theory of value" + rand' instead[2]. That the phrase is sometimes used does not mean that folk are talking about Rand's notion. This is not a notable topic. Banno 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I didn't find anything convincing myself, however, I don't presume a google search is complete, and there may be other sources beyond my knowledge. Thus I bring out the issue for others to address. It is used, so it doesn't not exist, thus I'm waiting to see if somebody can make an argument as to it being notable or distinct on its own. Mister.Manticore 14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere? Also, is this just some Rand follower's synthesis of ideas, or is it an actual concept with philosophical currency? -Apollo58 17:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to where? The phrase is not used in any of the usual philosophical references. See the talk page for an admision that the material is a synthesis. The basis for this AfD is not that the content is OR, but that it is not notable. That is, it's not that the article is an invention of the author, but that the specific topic is not sufficiently notable to have an article of it's own. The article is not redeemable. Banno 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is quite a lot of work on the issue, in both journals and books, and is the area within Objectivism in which Douglas Rasmussen specialises. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (yes, it exists) covers this issue repeatedly, both in passing and in dedication. The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand dedicates a chapter to 'Life and the Theory of Value' from the Objectivist viewpoint. And so on. Bastin 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anymore sources as to the term "theory of value" as found in works on Rand or Objectivists? It might be appropriate to rename this article to "Theory of Value (Objectivism)" instead. Mister.Manticore 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used frequently throughout Objectivist literature, both by Rand (Virtue of Selfishness) and by others (Reason and Value). In online sources, you can see its use less commonly, but it is used in (for example) this paper published by the Libertarian Alliance, 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. Banno 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 {{Notability}} is highly unorthodox and most unhelpful. 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). 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. Mister.Manticore 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bastin 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a reason why AFD is a five day process, and as far as it goes, there's not looking like much consensus to delete here. So it'll probably be shelved for further consideration/improvement. Mister.Manticore 15:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? Banno 13:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bastin 13:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Buridan 11:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 members 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? Postmodern Beatnik 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Colbert. If only. 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! Banno 21:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Banno inserted a POV description promoting his nomination into {{PhilosophyTasks}}, which I've now NPOV. Poor show! Bastin 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I Stated that it was "Rand material claiming to be a theory of value". I guess that might be construed as POV, but it is worth pointing out in the context that the theory is from Rand. Banno 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I would consider it important to make sure you are remaining neutral in what you're notifying folks about. The task list is at least reasonably neutral, but it's important to be very careful in what you say. Right now, I think it's neutral enough, but I can see where the original version was troubling. If there are people who say delete simply because they disapprove of Rand's theories, that's a problem in itself. Me, I think Rand is three-steps past raving loon, but that's not a deletion reason. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote. You may wish to modify your comment above as well. Mister.Manticore 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I change my comment above? I've been very clear with the reasons for deletion I have listed. The topic is not notable. I would ask the closing admin to ignore anyone who says that the page should be deleted because it is written by Rand, but I think that they are competent enough to do this themselves. As you say, this is not a vote. Banno 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were asking people to vote, but AFD is not a vote, but rather a discussion. Yet you said "IF you think the article not worthy of inclusion vote!" which pretty much strikes me as a request to vote. Especially since the request is hardly neutral on its own. Not a great problem, but a bad habit to get into. It's hard enough not thinking of this process as a voting one, let alone encouraging it. Mister.Manticore 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse my post at {{PhilosophyTasks}} with my reply to Postmodern Beatnik. Banno 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I know they're different. My responses to that notice are above in my initial reply. This is about the *other* section of my response, which was concerning your remark here. Were you confused? Mister.Manticore 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is I who is confused. Banno 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought I was mixing up the two statements, you were. The one was perhaps a bit less neutral than it should have been, the other was an encouragement to participate that I feel was poorly worded. Since you did reword your statement on the task list, I feel it might also have been advisable to modify the one here. If you think I'm confused about something, please tell me what. Mister.Manticore 23:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This process has resulted in some improvement in the article. Nice work, Bastin8. No consensus has been reached here, but I still think the article is problematic. It might be worth considering a merge to Objectivist ethics. Banno 00:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to nominate objectivist ethics and politics because those are not used popularly or in scholarly media. they seem to be neologisms created to capture and redescribe a bit of objectivist ideology. --Buridan 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It remains the case, despite the recent edits, that the article Objectivist theory of value contains no references to secondary sources, and should be deleted as per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The same is true of the other two articles. Their reference lists are pretty much restricted to Rand's own work, with a sprinkle from on or two of her supporters. Because Rand is outside the mainstream of philosophy, there is little by way of commentary on her work in academic circles. There is a short piece in IEP, bit it is certainly the exception - there is nothing like the coverage given in the Wiki. Perhaps the editors could allay these concerns by introducing some popular critiques of Rand's work? After all, if the stuff is as notable as is claimed, it should be possible to produce this material. Banno 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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). 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! Banno 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bastin 09:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the policy. take it up on the policy page. Banno 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. We don't always need to follow "policy" but can at times, bend and ignore it, where appropriate. That's the point where policy meets practice or practicality. In this case, it might be more practical to give the page time for clean-up and improvement and address it later. If there's some disagreement as to whether something merits an article, it doesn't cause a problem for the article to remain around while there's not a consensus to delete. Otherwise it wouldn't be the default action. Mister.Manticore 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(continued) Of course. A large part of the advantage that accrues to the encyclopaedia from the deletion process is the improvement of the articles that results from them being listed[3]. The improvements are pleasing, but not sufficient for me to withdraw the request for deletion, because the notability of the topic remains to be demonstrated within the article. But that is not a problem for the editors, since there is no consensus to delete. I suggest that this AfD now be closed with the conclusion: no consensus. Does anyone object? Banno 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't, I'm certainly not convinced to keep, but I'm not concerned about the subject of the article being any kind of problem, so it's one of the many things that can be tabled and considered again at a later date. Mister.Manticore 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]