This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

There seem to be a great deal of articles about that we want to see merged or deleted. I would propose that we use C-Class to tag these articles. It will make it easier for us to keep track of them all. Thoughts? TallNapoleon ( talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean paying attention to all those boxes on the talk pages? hmmmm - lol - seems like a bunch of work, and each deletion still gets discussed. How about creating a bullet list with links: adding to the list puts an article on the block, then we discuss only the ones that one or more editors defend, and those left on the block get cut a la speedy deletion as we can presume no controversy (I don't know what a reasonable amount of time would be, 3 weeks?). Just my thoughts. -- Karbinski ( talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'd template the articles at the same time we add them to the list? -- Karbinski ( talk) 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, since we'd be templating at the same time, this basically just lets us auto-sort things, so less effort on our part, and then discussions can take place at individual articles' talk pages. BTW, is there anyway to include the cross-talk as part of the WikiProject header? TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, I just added the project to the cross-talk header -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What about existing C category articles? -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If we decided to keep them, we'd recategorize them as "Start" or B-class. TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just did some playing around, and created the category: Category:Objectivism_Articles_Being_Considered_For_Deletion - how about using that? -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just messing around, the C-category thing will be more conveniant, and is already built into the project page, I say yes to this proposal -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this proposal, but if you must go ahead with it, please use NA instead of C – it's equally trackable but won't disrupt the projects assessment ratings as much.  Skomorokh  17:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This proposal seems to have been moribund for a couple of months now, but it is still mentioned on the project page. We seem to be doing a decent job coming up with deletion and merger proposals without using the classifications (or if people are using the classifications, they aren't mentioning it). I've started updating the "Pages for deletion" section on the project page to help us keep track of these. Does anyone still want to pursue the "C-Class" idea? -- RL0919 ( talk) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's any need to use C-Class for this purpose. - RLCampbell ( talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think it's necessary. The little house of horrors seems to be doing its job. I'm going to make another run through Objectivism related articles tonight and see if anything else needs to be added. TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section to this article appears to be some gossip from an unreliable source. In addition, it involves the writings of one Andrew Bernstein whose work (for the moment) appears to lack any verifiable notability. That aside, the source used to document the gossip should probably be removed from the article unless a colleague here or on the noticeboard can confirm its importance as a reliable source. Thoughts? J Readings ( talk) 02:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some scattered comments:

Notability is not a requirement for inclusion within articles; relevance is. Bernstein is not so small a fish in the Objectivist pond that his association with the JARS – or lack thereof – would not merit mention. I'm culpable for writing the meat of the article as a stub, thus giving the "controversy" the appearance of undue weight, but that can be rectified through expansion. Until then, reverting to a version like this would ameliorate the coat-racking concerns.

As far as scholars go, Stephan Kinsella is published in the right places, though mostly with respect to law (in which field he is an academic). LewRockwell.com is an established forum for libertarian editorials. I'm not committed either way on the reliability of the source, but it's not an obvious candidate for removal.

Shoring up this article would be a great stride in the ongoing cleanup of the Objectivism articles. Just as it's important to purge Wikipedia of unreliable blogs, walled gardens and Valliants, so too is presenting the most professional representation of encyclopedic Objectivist topics.

 Skomorokh  02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Its seems what is to be reported is that Objectivists don't contribute to the journal, not because JARS excludes them, but by their own choice. The Bernstein thing is an illustration of the point. I think the first problem here is that its not a controversy qua JARS, or even a personal controversy for Bernstein, it is simply an event indicative of JARS standing amongst contemporary Objectivist professionals. The second problem is that the content is trying to imply "Objectivists don't contribute to the journal, not because JARS excludes them, but by their own choice" instead of being explicit. This may because no secondary sources discuss JARS in this context. -- Karbinski ( talk) 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added some material about downstream effects of the Bernstein apology; it was cited in a Chronicle of Higher Education article as a reason for not accepting Bernstein as a visiting faculty member with Anthem Foundation funding. It is not fully clear to whom the Bernstein apology generalizes—agreement with it is not necessarily expressed by public endorsement—but persons affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute is the best guess. (The claim that we sometimes hear—that an Objectivist just is a person affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute—is surely contestable.) It is clearly not perceived as binding by the broader class of people who call themselves Objectivists. By a rather conservative criterion (including only those who identify themselves with the O-word), David Mayer, Adam Reed, Robert Hartford, Frank Bubb, Chris Cathcart, David Brown, Ari Armstrong, George Reisman, and Will Thomas are all Objectivists who have published in JARS since 2005. However, no author who was affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute at the time of publication has published in JARS since the Bernstein apology.- RLCampbell ( talk) 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So when Pelagius brought up Walker, I decided to take a look at the "Accusations of cultism" section in that article. It's a mess. Breaking it up by the individual authors making the charge is really clumsy and leads, in my opinion, to problems with weight. Plus, we again have the separate "response" section. It would be much, much better if all of this could be integrated into a single section, with Rothbard leading, others following, and criticism integrated. TallNapoleon ( talk) 08:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I never wrote the section, but it does appear to be choppy. Also, I have to say, I just started looking at some of these citations and -- My God people -- once again the reader is treated to a host of self-published sources, partisan self-published blogs, unspecified archives to I-don't-know-where and everything under the sun expect what should be there: academic journals, newspapers, and books. I can't believe (and I know I'm not) the only editor who has access on Wikipedia to a public library or electronic databases. J Readings ( talk) 09:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike choppy, and yes, reliable sources all around! -- Karbinski ( talk) 13:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at the sources, I think there are more "reliable" (within Wikipedia standards, not saying that I agree with them) sources than it might seem at first. A number of the web links are to materials that were published and simply happen to be available online now. Others can be fixed by updating the source to something more direct (e.g., quoting a book directly rather than quoting it "as cited by" a website). I'll see what I can do with them later this evening. As to rewriting the text for better flow, that's probably beyond my available time at the moment. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to edit one and I keep getting a database error. So I guess I'll try again tomorrow. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the db error is gone, so I'm starting to update the citations. The first update involved deleting a link to my own website! -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know I said before that I probably wouldn't have time to rewrite the section, but I gave it a try anyway. The subheads for each critic are gone, the citations are streamlined (before the same site often appeared two times in a row, even within the same sentence), and I generally tried to make the writing better. I also neutralized a POV remark about Scientology being a cult. I'm sure further improvements can be made, but I hope this is a good first pass. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I didn't see the section before Readings and RL worked on it :) I still see a couple of problems. One is that the distinction could be clearer between Objectivism allegedly being a cult and NBI being a cult. The latter was an organization, the former is not. Second, "cult" is already a vague notion, and a number of writers have made charges about religious attitudes and practices that fall short of full culthood. I assume these would still belong in this section.- RLCampbell ( talk)

The cited sources (Rothbard, etc.) do not typically distinguish between between "Objectivism" and "NBI" when they make their accusations. That's not to say the distinction isn't valid, just that the accusers don't typically make it. The cited responders (Peron, Sures) also fail to make this distinction in their responses. The article should reflect the claims as they are made in the relevant sources, not how we think they ought to be made. If you know of a reliable source that makes a point of that distinction in discussing the matter, then it could be introduced.

As to "religious attitudes," I think that again this would depend on what the sources say. Referring to something as 'religious' doesn't have exactly the same meaning as calling it a 'cult'. In ordinary language, the latter term has distinctly negative connotations that the former does not. The claims of religiosity by Albert Ellis are connected to the cultism charges by Walker, so bringing Ellis in follows the sources. But if a source discusses "religious attitudes" and there is nothing that connects that to the cult accusation (either in that source or in a different source that relates the two), then I think there would be a problem. -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been a little while since I read Ellis's book, but I don't recall him framing his complaint in terms of Objectivism being a cult. He laid a number of charges of what he considered religious attitudes or behavior. If Ellis doesn't use the word "cult," but Walker, writing a decade later, invokes Ellis to support his charges of cultism, which source are we to follow? - RLCampbell ( talk) 23:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Since Ellis put out a revised edition of his book after Walker's came out, and in the revision Ellis quotes Walker and strongly recommends his book, my take is that there's no conflict in this case. If Ellis took any exception to Walker's interpretation of his material, he had the opportunity to say so. I don't think we should be be looking for any magic word(s) in a critic's text, but rather trying to reasonably represent what the critic is saying. What I would not want to see, for example, would be a critic like John Robbins being added into this section because he says that Rand has a "theology." What Robbins is saying is very different from the "Objectivism is a cult" accusation, and the use of religious terminology doesn't automatically connect his criticisms those. But if a critic portrayed Rand as a religious guru being blindly followed by worshipful acolytes, without ever using the specific word 'cult', I think the criticism would belong in this section (assuming all the usual criteria of reliable sources, etc., are met). -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now seen the quotes from Walker in the revised Ellis book, and noted Ellis's use of Walker in the revised section.- RLCampbell ( talk) 22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way we can get Miszabot to archive this, even though it's not a talk page? TallNapoleon ( talk) 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask Misza. If not, it would not be too much of a chore to do manually. I think sections can be archived two weeks after they have been <noinclude>d.  Skomorokh  03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bot archiving would be desirable. At present it won't work because all the sections on this page use headers with the triple equal sign, i.e. ===This style of header=== instead of what MiszaBot expects, which is ==This kind==. Do you think people would agree to change the header style? Would the template still work right? EdJohnston ( talk) 04:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My goal was that each host talk page would have a Article Cross Talk section with sub-headers. But I think this is generally accomplished by making the Article Cross Talk header of style '='. At any rate I agree with Skomorokh that archiving this will be/is a trivial chore. -- Karbinski ( talk) 13:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The key to manual archiving seems to be that someone has to remember to do it! The page was last archived at the end of May, and had since grown by over 200%. I just archived the sections and subsections that were untouched since June (except this one). I've never created an archive before, so if there's anything I could have done better, someone let me know. -- RL0919 ( talk) 01:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles are open for editing, let the editting begin. Let it ride as it were, we can deal with specific problems if and when they pop-up. -- Karbinski ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarifications, and I am satisfied that the book itself may still be used by other editors. This was my only concern. Pelagius1 ( talk) 13 June, 2009.

Anyone still following the back-and-forth at the Objectivist websites? The anti-Valliant crowd are now alleging that Durban House (publisher of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics) was actually owned by the Valliants themselves (caveat lector: I haven't seen this claim fully substantiated).  Skomorokh  21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the allegations, the supposed history is more complicated, and involves the Valliants possibly buying the Durban House name from a third-party company a few years after PARC was published. The evidence on some points in the alleged history appears to be very slim. For example, an online ad for the book on one website temporarily listed another company's name as publisher, so it is concluded that this company bought Durban House. Since the name "Durban House" appears as publisher on subsequent ads, it is further concluded that someone must have bought the name from this other company. And it is speculated (on no evidence that I've noticed) that the supposed purchaser of the Durban House name might be the Valliants themselves. Less conspiratorial possibilities (such as a mistake in the ad when it showed a different company as publisher) aren't considered.

Most of this isn't relevant to the book's status as a source for Wikipedia articles. The only relevant point in this whole mass of speculation is the possibility that the original publication of PARC might not have been "arms-length" because the author's wife might have been working for the publisher at that time. If true, that would go against the idea of the book being reliable. But I know from experience that unfounded speculation is rampant on these discussion boards (having been a subject of completely inaccurate speculations myself), so I don't put much stock in the theorizing that appears there.

A better test for PARC will be the three biographies of Rand now due to be published this year, all from disinterested authors and respectable publishing houses. If these books treat PARC as a respectable source, then its status will be bolstered. If they ignore it or criticize it as unreliable, then it will be difficult to make a case for its use as a source here. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that whether Jim and Holly Valliant currently own Durban House (which Pelagius1 said at one point was out of business) is not relevant to the reliability of The Passion of Ayn Rand Critics. Holly Valliant's possibly being an employee of Durban House when the book was published is a bigger deal (she posted a review on amazon.com back in 2002, using "Durban House Publishing" as her handle). But it seems unlikely that clarification will be provided. Currently, my suggestion is to present PARC as one of the negative reactions to Barbara Branden's book The Passion of Ayn Rand. I think it would also be appropriate to mention PARC in connection with Nathaniel Branden's memoirs (but these are not currently covered in a separate article, and I don't know whether there are plans to make one). Until we see how the Burns and Heller biographies use PARC, I don't recommend citing it in other Wikipedia articles. - RLCampbell ( talk) 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At present, PARC is mentioned only as a book-length negative review of The Passion of Ayn Rand, unless I've missed something.- RLCampbell ( talk) 23:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This article survived an AFD a couple of years ago, but as it appears that we are working on merging and eliminating these extraneous articles, I think we should consider doing a merge/redirect. TallNapoleon ( talk) 09:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

25 citations. 80% citing Ayn Rand directly; 20% repeatedly citing only two independent third-party sources, one of which (Libertarian Alliance) being a think tank. This is another article that needs better sources or it needs to merge with something else, I believe. J Readings ( talk) 11:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. KD Tries Again ( talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Anyone want to take a stab at this, or should we triage it and deal with it later? Unlike many of the things from the house of horrors, this appears to have some valuable content, so just blanking and redirecting probably isn't a good idea. TallNapoleon ( talk) 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The content needs to be split up and folded into the relevant sections of the article on Objectivism: epistemology, ethics, aesthetics.- RLCampbell ( talk) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If we are trying to find and eliminate inappropriate or gratuitous references to Rand, this should prove useful. As soon as my arbcomm amendment is finalized, I'm going to start sorting through these and looking to see if the Rand references are appropriate or not. We may wish to do this with other Objectivism related articles as well. TallNapoleon ( talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One that I found is Problem_of_induction#Ayn_Rand.27s_Objectivism. This section takes up more space than any of the other philosophers discussed--a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It also had wikilinks in the section header, which is deprecated. I did a quick fix of that. I'll leave it to someone else to reduce the section to something proportional. (It also completely lacks citations. <sigh>) -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, more than Hume and Popper. I'll take a closer look. Done: her claim is pretty clear - it's consistent with her position that empirical truths are ultimately analytic, if only we knew every property of every object. I've tried to express it concisely. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'm not going to try to edit this item now (have some other things on my plate), but three things come to mind. (1) There is more to the Objectivist treatment of induction than the account of certainty (although it needn't take up much more space in a survey article, and it certainly shouldn't give Rand a longer section than Popper); (2) The Objectivist account of certainty is, so far as anyone knows, mainly Leonard Peikoff's contribution; and (3) Rand admitted on at least one occasion that her account of induction was incomplete, because she had no philosophy of science.- RLCampbell ( talk) 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Somehow this wasn't listed here. He's one of the most publicly prominent Objectivists around, so I sorted him into mid-importance. That said the article may have some length issues. TallNapoleon ( talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There may also be original research issues. Almost every reference note is one of his articles or video clips. -- RL0919 ( talk) 06:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled on this article weeks ago and had some of the same thoughts as TallNapoleon and RL0919. It would be nice if we limited ourselves to independent third-party sources when writing these articles. Makes life so much easier. Anyway, he's notable. J Readings ( talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Length issues... Brook's article is currently somewhat longer than Leonard Peikoff's. Doesn't seem right, somehow. - RLCampbell ( talk) 01:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rand published a number of nonfiction works, largely essay collections. Most of these have their own articles, even though they are nowhere close to being as notable as her fiction. Rather, they are more notable as a body of work, in totality. How would people feel about merging these articles together? TallNapoleon ( talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle this is problematic, as I would argue that more than one of them is notable in its own right (that is to say, could have a good-length reliably sourced article written on them). As things stand, however, once the table-of-contents-esque and unsourced analysis is cut from them, each makes up a nice 1k to 5k paragraph that is very amenable to merging. If at any point someone decided to give one of the books the article it deserved, it could still be included in the merged article in summary style. Note: for ease of access, the articles in question are those in Category:Books by Ayn Rand.  Skomorokh  05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about this. I agree that the current articles are weak and could be merged, but I'm also comfortable that at least four of the books (FNI, VOS, RM and ITOE), maybe more, are notable in their own right. The least notable are The Voice of Reason and The Ayn Rand Column. I suspect that Rand's Letters and Journals, which do not have articles, have a better claim to notability than those two. -- RL0919 ( talk) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we merge the lot, leaving redirects behind, and then decide which redirects will get fleshed out into their own articles? TallNapoleon ( talk) 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With the re-directs a merge should work fine for the current content. -- Karbinski ( talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

These two books were queried on reliability above, based on Google Scholar results. Per WP Reliable Sources, I have no problem with them. Gladstein is a reputable academic and scholar, the former book is published by a "leading educational publisher" ( Greenwood Publishing Group) the latter book is published by a university press (Penn State). Clearly reliable, I'd say. KD Tries Again ( talk) 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

In fact, Dr. Gladstein is an expert on several other authors besides Ayn Rand. She might deserve an article of her own, at some point.- RLCampbell ( talk) 14:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

She has one now. - RLCampbell ( talk) 01:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure this has been discussed before. It's a peer-reviewed journal, isn't it? KD Tries Again ( talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My concern is that it has not entered the mainstream academic discourse. It is note cited in any work outside. The only citations they garner are from JARS authors writing articles for JARS—and Wikipedia. [2] Brandonk2009 ( talk) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's worth taking a look at the way it's used, though. I just checked Ayn Rand, which has 129 references. I counted five cites to JARS, and they are to articles by Chris Sciabarra, with the exception of one by George Walsh. Ironically, if these were self-published articles they'd clearly be admissible, as Sciabarra and Walsh are qualified, established experts in the field. I'd agree that WP policy isn't very clear on this. Note that JARS is not cited once in the Objectivism article and the only cite in Objectivist Movement is to its own web-page, presumably to confirm its existence. So I don't see it being "used enthusiastically" as you said earlier. KD Tries Again ( talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

JARS is indeed a peer-reviewed journal and is covered by mainstream academic indexes. I do not think reliability per Wikipedia standards is much in doubt. Peer-reviewed academic publications are the sources to which one would look for citations of other types of works, not vice-versa. As to usage, I think we are looking at an issue of availability (something I've harped on before): Sciabarra puts his articles up on his website after they are published, and the Walsh essay is also posted online. Easy access combined with relevance is what is causing them to be used, not any special enthusiasm for the journal. I would also note that most of what these articles are cited for is prosaic: what Rand's major was in college, when she graduated, what tv shows have mentioned her. Only the Walsh article touches on anything particularly controversial. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

JARS policy allows authors to post their articles on their websites 6 months after they appear in the hard-copy journal. Meanwhile, there is (as yet) no electronic edition of the journal. Consequently, the online availability of articles is sporadic, and up to the individual authors. -- RLCampbell ( talk) 19:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

One deficiency I see in the present Wikicoverage of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and related figures is the paucity of coverage for Rand scholars who do not profess Objectivism—or for thinkers who have obviously been influenced by Rand and see themselves as building on her work, but again do not use the O-word. The rather skimpy articles for Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Roderick Long are an exception. Presently there is a fairly detailed article on Tibor Machan (but he is not presently included in this WikiProject's coverage). Meanwhile there is nothing for Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen—who jointly edited the first scholarly anthology on Rand; jointly published three books on the theory of individual rights; published a book on prudence (Den Uyl); published several articles on epistemology (Rasmussen); published on Atlas Shrugged (Rasmussen)—either of "the Dougs" is surely more notable than Peter Schwartz, let alone Alex Epstein at this stage of his career. There's not a lick on Eric Mack, Fred Miller, or Neera Badhwar, all established academic philosophers who have written about Rand. There is nothing on Lou Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, who have operated a magazine called Aristos for years and published a major book on Randian aesthetics. Mimi Reisel Gladstein is also more notable than Peter Schwartz or Harry Binswanger, and has published extensively about John Steinbeck and other authors besides Rand, yet she does not have an article. Building some coverage of these folks should be a curative for walled garden syndrome.- RLCampbell ( talk) 22:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tibor Machan probably should be covered under the Objectivism project, so I've added the project template to Talk:Tibor R. Machan. As for the ones without articles currently, as long as they meet the notability criteria for academics (or some other applicable notability criteria) and there are adequate sources to create an article from, then I'm all for having articles on them. Gladstein, for example, probably does meet the notability standard, but that would need to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis. The mere fact that they have written about a notable topic (e.g., Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism) doesn't necessary make them notable themselves. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I created a page for Mimi Reisel Gladstein. Based on her awards and positions, she seems sufficiently notable. My main concern is that it is hard to find sources about her that are independent. -- RL0919 ( talk) 01:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, these are the only ones of Rand's characters to have their own articles devoted to them. Howard Roark, for instance, does not. I would be strongly in favor of merging Dagny Taggart and Gail Wynand into their respective parent articles, List of characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (there is no List of characters in The Fountainhead). I would also lean towards doing this for John Galt, however as he has become an iconic figure in his own right there is a stronger case for keeping his article. TallNapoleon ( talk) 05:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all counts.  Skomorokh  05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all counts as well. -- RL0919 ( talk) 06:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: All articles redirected to parent articles.

Real Final outcome: All articles except John Galt redirected to parent articles.

Appears to be another totally nonnotable book. I've stubbed it down because OH GOD THE VANITY PAGE IT BURNS IT HURTSSSS USSSS PRECIOUS adgfafhadfhadfhadf. Propose redirect to Andrew Bernstein, Objectivist Movement or something similar. TallNapoleon ( talk) 02:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting to the article about the author seems reasonable enough. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, is that really a plausible redirect? TallNapoleon ( talk) 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to give this book a separate article. - RLCampbell ( talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Final Outcome: The article was deleted today. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite the name, Capitalism Magazine is a website. There are no sources cited in the article and no evidence of notability in the article itself. The only argument for notability that I could find on the article's talk page was that it "publishes some important people in the field," which is not one of the notability criteria for web content. (Plus many of the articles seem to be syndicated columns or mass-distributed op-eds rather than unique material published by the site.) As far as I can tell, it does not meet any of the notability criteria for web content. Deletion, or perhaps a redirect to Objectivist movement, seems in order. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've PRODded it. TallNapoleon ( talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick mention in Objectivist Movement ought to suffice.- RLCampbell ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've sent it to AfD due to its longevity and how many editors have worked on the article, but it'll get deleted unless someone magically discovers some sources. Fences& Windows 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The AfD seems to be drawing little attention, even from folks who are active on the Objectivism wikiproject, so I wanted to remind folks that it is going on right now. Visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalism Magazine to register your support or opposition to the deletion. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Final Outcome: Article was deleted today. -- RL0919 ( talk) 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know what should be done with the five redirects that used to go to this article? There aren't any pages linking to them, but I assume that they shouldn't just continue redirecting to the deleted article. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the lot of them for speedy deletion as redirects with an invalid target. TallNapoleon ( talk) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really a horror per se, but it doesn't appear to be a particularly notable work. If no one objects I will prod it. TallNapoleon ( talk) 17:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not very notable in its own right.- RLCampbell ( talk) 02:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And no harm will be done by prodding it.- RLCampbell ( talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh merged the (minimal) content into Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism and redirected the article. That solution works just fine for me. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: Article merged to Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism.