Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism and primitivism

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 was delete. –MuZemike 23:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism and primitivism

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic POV fork created by an editor who was having trouble getting material about Objectivist views on Arabs and Native Americans (which the editor groups together as "primitivism") included in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. There was some consensus on the talk page of that article that the limited secondary source coverage on these topics might warrant a paragraph or so, but one editor wanted a much more expansive treatment, so he created a separate article for it. The subject matter lacks sufficient notability for an independent article, as there is very little secondary source coverage. Instead the article has been cobbled together using a synthesis of primary sources (quotes from recordings of Rand and op-eds from the Ayn Rand Institute) and a few passing mentions of related items in secondary sources (not substantial coverage). There is only one truly relevant secondary source in the article (a paragraph from a recent bio of Rand), which is what could be as the basis for appropriately weighted coverage in either Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Ayn Rand, but it is not enough to justify an article. RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by creator with Strong Keep.

[1] I believe the article clearly shows that there is enough coverage to merit its own article. The article has only existed for 12 hours, and it already has more refs (13) than half of Wikipedia’s articles. More importantly, the references are from reliable first hand sourcing, and none are even from critics of Objectivism or Ayn Rand. Moreover, note how the ACCURACY of the documented quotes are not in question or disputed, it's a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Additionally, to those who would question such specificity, see Objectivism and homosexuality, which also relies on primary sourcing as precedent for the article.

[2] I dispute that it is a POV fork. The only Point Of View being put forth are the views of Ayn Rand, the Ayn Rand Institute, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives), Leonard Peikoff (Rand's intellectual heir), Mimi Reisel Gladstein author of The New Ayn Rand Companion and Jennifer Burns author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right - on the issue of primitivism as it relates to Native Americans and Arabs. I am NOT relying on the editorial views of critics (as you would usually find in a real pov fork) - these are the stated views of Objectivists themselves.

[3] I also dispute the characterization that I am on a sole crusade to insert this material, as myself and 3 other editors on the Objectivism page have argued for its inclusion ---> see long discussion. However, each time we are met with the WP:TENDentious attempts at WP:Ownership by User:Karbinski to protect his self-proclaimed "intellectual hero" from any potentially unflattering material.

[4] I believe this to possibly be a case of WP:Censorship by Objectivist editors who themselves don't agree with Rand's stance and thus would like to avoid and erase any mention of the matter by Rand and all of her fellow institutes. Since they as Objectivists don't think this way, they feel that it is inaccurate to attribute these views to Objectivism (which they believe they subscribe to). But you don't get to cherry pick Rand's and her institutes views to your own liking.

[5] If there wasn't enough coverage to merit an article, then I would not have been able to so easily create one with so many references to first hand sources. Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-argued AFD. — Timneu22 · talk 15:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Either. Either keep this article, or delete Objectivism and Homosexuality along with it. --Karbinski (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability and Verifiability have to be the standard. Although the article's premesis seem sound, they are none-the-less not supported by reliable secondary sources. --Karbinski (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This claim of "lacking secondary sources" is not only dubious (they are there) but intellectually dishonest in relation to many of the other Objectivist-related articles. See the footnotes for Objectivist theory of value (13 of the 15 are Rand herself), Objectivism and homosexuality (all 13 refs are first hand sources by Objectivists) etc. Who better to cite on Objectivism's view than actual Objectivists and Rand herself? If I formed an article filled with "interpretation" and "critiques" by non-Objectivists on the material, then I am sure that the complaint would be that they are taking the words out of context or applying their own pov and editorial slant. This issue and these facts will not simply go away by trying to prevent them from being on Wiki (note how nobody here doubts the accuracy of the claims made in the article which is foolproof per the sources). Since there are so many sources by Rand and her institutes on the matter, the issue will continue to be brought up (as it was this month by the user Collector555 ---> shown here on Rand’s main page) until it is sufficiently dealt with. Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the article as you originally wrote it (I believe that is how it stands currently). But the "what about these" defense isn't a defense - those articles should be re-considered. --Karbinski (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karbinski, if you "like it", then why are you voting to have it deleted? Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is widely viewed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. I personally would not shed a tear if both of the articles you mention were deleted, although either could probably be rewritten with secondary sources and have more relevant sources than what can be provided for Objectivism and primitivism. You seem to think that cobbling together primary sources is a good basis for an article, but it is not. Editorial synthesis of material to create a topic that isn't discussed in secondary sources is against Wikipedia policy. You have a primary sources that express various views about Native Americans or Arabs, which you have combined into a topic about the Objectivist view of "primitivism" that is not discussed in any secondary source. You have a couple of secondary sources that mention Rand's views on Native Americans and Arabs, and one other that quotes an ARI op-ed about Native Americans without mentioning Arabs or Objectivism. None of these use the term 'primitivism'. One secondary source briefly says that Rand's fiction is not primitivist but doesn't associate this with her views on Native Americans or Arabs. That these bits and pieces can be pulled together into an Objectivist view of primitivism is an interesting and perhaps true idea that would make a good article for The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, but since no secondary source has promulgated that association, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about it. --RL0919 (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RL, you claim "none of these use the term primitivism" which is patently false. I suggest using the ctrl + F option on the article, and searching for "primitiv" realizing that sometimes they use "primitivism", other times "primitive" or "primitivist". The term is utilized in attributed quotes 9 times with 6 other mentions in the article not in direct quotes. Moreover, since the article is obviously not a finished product, despite the desire to strangle the proverbial baby in its crib (and delete an article not even 24 hours old), I have added a section on Rousseauian romanticism of primitive life and how Objectivism states it became the foundation for the 1960's counterculture and New Left (There is also a whole book by Rand i.e. Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution that looks at this issue). This is not solely about Native Americans and Arabs, although those are two notable instances where Rand & her institutes have repeatedly spoken about a specific group as an example. Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the "none" in my comment referred to the secondary sources. You have relevant primary source material to work with, and if Wikipedia published original essays based on primary sources, you'd be set. But unfortunately that isn't what we are supposed to be doing. --RL0919 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a POV fork, without reliable third party sources. TFD (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the level of coverage in secondary sources doesn't rise to the level of notability. The essays available online that are cited the most don't support the point being made as well as they should (e.g., the first condemns primitivism and claims that Rand stands for modernity, but does not claim that Rand condemned primitivism; another claims it in a single sentence). Of course, there might be a serious problem with the Objectivism article if this material is excluded altogether (sources do exist), but a separate article is not the way to deal with it. Contrary to what some of the delete votes above say, there are reliable secondary sources, just not enough for an independent article. Perhaps the author should seek a third opinion regarding the original article. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.