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 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? 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]