Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism's rejection of the primitive (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Objectivism's rejection of the primitive

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Objectivism's rejection of the primitive
• Articles for deletion/Objectivism's rejection of the primitive (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Objectivism's rejection of the primitive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This spinoff of a detailed subtopic of Objectivism is based almost exclusively on primary sources. Out of 21 reference notes:

• Refs 1-12, 15, and 18-21 are all primary sources.
• Ref 16 is a newspaper reader writing to object to one of the primary sources that was published in his local paper.
• Ref 17 does not discuss the subject at all.

That leaves just notes 13 and 14 as the only secondary source refs related to the topic. They are both brief (two sentences and one paragraph, respectively) and about specific examples rather than the general subject. At most this limited coverage might justify a paragraph in the Objectivism article; it definitely should not be puffed up into a separate article with numerous quotes from primary sources. This spin-off was deleted once in 2011, then NAC kept in 2012 without any proof of substantial coverage. Since then it was expanded with more primary source quotes, but hasn't added any new secondary sources. RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an argumentative essay; everyone in 2024 knows that we are not a free web host or blog for ideas and essays. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the article is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: no evidence of notability, difficult to do a before search with such a general title but couldn't find anything that suggests this a topic worthy of its own article. Shapeyness (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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.