Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Things in Atlas Shrugged

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Notability of book

• Those portals are on multiple books. This category is on one single book. -- infinity0 20:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Those portals didn't start an entire political movement. --Rory096 21:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• The book is not the bible. It should be treated like all other books. -- infinity0 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that Atlas Shrugged should be treated like, say, Sylvester and the Magic Pebble? Some books have a much larger fan base and more sales, and so should be treated differently. --Rory096 05:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The political significance is irrelevant to the literary elements of the book and the significance thereof. --Mmx1 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, but after seeing Minor Ravenclaws come up in the CVU IRC feed, I am astounded that something like this can be in AfD, but something like that is not, and will never be. --Rory096 07:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • That really belongs on a HP equivalent of Memory Alpha, not here. At least with Star Trek, every time fancruft gets inserted we can politely point to Memory Alpha and say "that-a-way". Maybe someone could start a Sci-fi/Anime/Fantasy wiki to keep all the cruft off wiki. --Mmx1 07:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Rory, I dont think anybody disputes the value of the book. Nobody is proposing deleting Atlas Shrugged itself. But any article starting with "Things in..." deserves to be scrutinized. Hell, I think Things in Sylvester and the Magic Pebble would be deleted without a second thought! The fact that we are discussing it (and from the sight of it, not deleting) indicates this book is taken more seriously. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 10:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course we wouldn't delete the main article, Jimbo is an objectivist; he'd never allow it. ;-) The whole point is that this article is exponentially more popular than some random book we'd never be talking about if I didn't pick it out of Category:Children's books stubs, and so it requires subpages to have the excess material that can't fit in the main article, just like every other book. --Rory096 03:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not a popular book, though. Outside of the circle of objectivists it's largely unknown, and ignored, just like most ordinary books. -- infinity0 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not true. It's a very common in U.S. high school Literature syllabi. --Mmx1 17:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I meant unknown to the general population. Most books are only known by a small minority of all people. -- infinity0 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precedents like "Star Trek"

• I'm bothered by what amounts to a threat to quit wikipedia if this is not deleted. I beg you not to take a peek at the Star Wars or Star Trek sites; you might have an apoplexy. Regardless of your political alignment, you must concede that she is a major political figure and her writings are quite significant. May I count on your support for stamping out the fanatical and reverential propagandism for Alex Jones (journalist)? --Mmx1 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I know all about that stuff (Star Trek and so on, I mean, not Alex Jones (??)). I don't think that an entry on Atlas Shrugged is inappropriate. I wouldn't even mind entries on every indiviual work of Rand, along with her biography. This is common in many encyclopedias for major literary figures and I would extend it to Rand even though I honestly DO NOT consider her a major literary figure (which is what we should be discussing here, BTW). What we're talking about here though--8 articles on one book-- is complete silliness and the same applies to Star Trek or my personal favorite example of high-standards encylcopedic content of them all: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. My point is very simple: I just don't see any standards at all being applied and this is just another example of Wikianarchism. So I strongly suggest MERGING and PURGING. But, as I noted above, please let me know when these votes to delete Space 1999, episode 2004 (or whatever) come up. This is not a particular problem with Rand, as far as I'm concerned.--Lacatosias 19:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integrity of AfD

• Have a peek at my vote (and my talk page). Wikipedia is not a list of trivia. --Mmx1 04:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell our opinions are compatible. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Except I'm pushing for a purge and merge. There's too much irrelevant crap about minor literary details. --Mmx1 14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I refrain from taking stances on issues unrelated to the question of deletion, they are not appropriate for AFD and are better handled at the article's talk page. If the article is kept, you will be free to trim or merge it in conjunction with the other editors. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Well, now I really unsredtand the reason why absolutely nothing can be deleted from this project. Instead of discussing the (lack of ) justification for keeping an article (such as the one on Cindy Sheehan, which is completely irrelevant to an encylopedia or the childhood of Hugo Chavez and the last time he moved his bowls), the general idea is to attack the unclean motivations of the those who propose deletion of absolute nonsense. --Lacatosias 09:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you'd vote to remove Cindy Sheehan? Fascinating. To tell you the truth, there are thousands of things that bother me about Wikipedia. Instead of getting entangled into things I find silly, I usually contribute in something I find meaningful. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)