Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ayn Rand/archive1

Ayn Rand

I would like to move to re-nominate the Ayn Rand Article for a Wiki Featured Article due to the fact that all of the problems have been cleared up and the new version is both informative and well-written. The Fading Light 5:59, 2 May 2006 Previous nomination.

Images do not meet licencing requirments, all fair use images need fair use rationales.--nixie 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nixie. - FrancisTyers 00:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Good God! Why on earth do some of you people have to be so nit-picky and kill off any enjoyment you might find in working on Wiki? The Fading Light 10:10, 2 May 2006
- Settle down. Personal attacks are against the rules of Wikipedia. -- LGagnon 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The cult section is still not fully explored. Several other arguments, including more in the cited sources alone, have not been added. Also, I made a recommendation for a separate article for this section (as the Rand article is getting quite big, and it would help for consistency's sake to have a central article on the subject) which has not yet been addressed. -- LGagnon 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to Strong Oppose. As the "Ayn Rand cult" article, which supplimented this article, was deleted (same old Objectivist bias on Wikipedia), the section on the cult claims is even weaker. There's a lot of work to be done to recover all the information deleted by so-called "unbiased" editors and a lack of safeguards against a tyranny of the majority. -- LGagnon 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like a good article, but I have a few nitpicks. The 'Is Objectivism a cult?' section has several quotes, one of them is very large: consider reducing the quote overload (move the to Wikiquote). Some tiny sections are but a stub sections and should be expanded: 'Ayn Rand Institute' and 'Popular interest' are currently stub sections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The cult section is not good, but it is not a widely discussed aspect of Ayn Rand's life and is not essential to the article. I'm more bothered that almost all the references are to web pages; one of them is just a google search. It would be more credible to cite stable and edited paper sources, such as the ones in the "Further Reading" section. But even though it's not perfect, this article seems to meet the FA criteria. Our remaining concerns can be addressed later.--Yannick 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The cult section is, in fact, essential. How can the article be NPOV if we remove the most important criticism of Rand? -- LGagnon 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting removing that section by any means. I just don't think it is essential for that section to be polished in order to deem the article comprehensive. This is the harshest criticism Rand, but it is not widespread and only has peripheral importance.--Yannick 04:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This looks to be a well-written and extensively footnoted article about a person in whom many people are interested.--Coemgenus 20:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]