Deletion of Objectivist metaphysics

Comment: I tend to see Rand's philosophy as somewhat of a |fringe position, unoriginal to the extent that it's right, and wrong to the extent that it's original.  Rand and her followers' vehemence in judgments on their critics tended to diminish her ideas' chances of being taken seriously as well.  Any trepidation I'd have about such articles comes not from the fact that they rehash Rand, but that Rand doesn't merit that depth of coverage.That said, she acquired enough of a following that there has come into being a small industry of academics who seek to rehabilitate the reputation of Rand's ideas.  And any idea about Rand's thought is only worthwhile to the extent that it communicates the substance of Rand's thought.  And to the extent that there is a scope of objectivist opinion, that itself is worth coverage, given that the core of Randian objectivism seems to be to claim that reason dictates a single correct answer to every question.  I am not prepared to endorse the deletion of encyclopedia articles on the epistemology, ethics, or political philosophy of Rand and her followers; she was not a ''major'' philosopher, but she is a ''well known'' philosopher.  The rest seems a content dispute beyond our bailiwick
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: on procedural grounds. This is |not an issue for AfD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". Wikipedia without doubt should have content ''somewhere'' on these topics, as they surpass the |threshold for notability beyond reasonable doubt (see bibliography of work on Objectivism). The only question here is whether or not the branches of Objectivist philosophy should have stand-alone articles or not, and that is a question of merging, not deletion, and so belongs on the article talkpages, not here. Even if it were judged appropriate to have these articles deleted, the titles would still be redirects to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and as that article covers some of the same content as these, content from the sub-articles would need to be moved to preserve the best content the encyclopaedia has to offer on the topic. In other words, if the articles are not kept, merging (however selective) is the only realistic outcome. I've gone ahead and redirected '''Objectivist politics''' to the main article, without prejudice against recreation, because the summary in the main article was more extensive and better cited. The Objectivist metaphysics and Objectivist epistemology articles offer valuable analyses beyond what is present in Objectivism (Ayn Rand); granted, they are lacking in references, but there are a http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/toc.asp wealth of reliable sources that can be used to support and expand the articles. It's disheartening again to see the Pokemon  fallacy ("topic ''x'' is less important than these other topics, but has more articles; delete them") raise it's ugly head here; |there is enough space and |coverage to write dozens of |verifiable, neutral articles on hundreds of philosophical schools of thought. It's a ''good thing'' that Wikipedia's coverage of Objectivism, transhumanism and {{tl|Nietzsche}} is so extensive, because it does not come at the expense of the poor coverage of communitarianism, German idealism, Kripke and so on. Wikipedia:Content forking refers primarily to non-neutral versions of existing articles – which is clearly not the case here: "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View." In summary, this nomination fundamentally fails to address the |potential rather than current state of the coverage of the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:POTENTIAL)