This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This redirect is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the redirect attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
All I see is an unpublished play only discussed by the friends and co-workers of its author. This article needs independent RS to demonstrate notability. Steeletrap (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
It is discussed in Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism (page 265, with more info in the endnote on page 667), plus the Sciabarra passage already cited. (Whether Sciabarra had a strong enough connection to Rothbard to be disqualified as "independent" is debatable.) That's all I know of. It is mentioned in passing in Goddess of the Market, but not in a way that satisfies the "significant coverage" criterion of WP:N. Given the brevity of the article (half of it is references and external links) and the existence of reliable sources for the content, the obvious thing to do would be to merge it to the Murray Rothbard article. --RL0919 (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the heads-up on the (unconnected) Doherty source. I still however think it pretty epically fails the notability test. Steeletrap (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
