Talk:Objectivist periodicals

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 October 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Objectivism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism articles Magazines Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

The Objective Standard was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Objectivist periodicals. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

For some reason the lede to this looks a little funny, especially the first sentence. Perhaps we would be better off titling it "List of Objectivist periodicals"? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would suggest the article would be in list format, whereas the better-formed parts of it are currently a narrative and should probably stay that way. But I have no doubt that the lead could be improved. --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed previously on the Objectivism cross-talk page, there is a concern that some of the individual articles may lack notability for a separate article. There is also a continuous history for several of these publications, which makes it easier (and less redundant) to discuss them together in a single article. Finally, there are some less prominent periodicals for which articles have never been created due to lack of article-level notability, but which are significant enough to be discussed in a combined article, thus allowing the encyclopedia to provide information about them. --RL0919 (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support blanking-out and re-directing. --Karbinski (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support blanking-out and re-directing. --Emb021 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: The merger has been completed with the individual articles now redirecting to this one. --RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]