"this article does not belong in the Wikipedia Philosophy Project == 
 (1) To be considered as a physicist fit for inclusion in wikipedia, the candidate must ""be"" a physicist on a commonsense basis. 

 (2) Neutrality (NPOV) means that the best way of determining whether the candidate is a physics is to look for formal certification and a near universal peer acceptance such that even physicists who disagree with the candidate's results admit that so and so is a physicist. They should say when his name is mentioned, ""oh, yes, Jenkins...heard of chap...did some interesting work...bit of a bounder"", not ""good God man, keep him off the grounds"". 

 (3) The ""Caesar's Wife"" rule applies where that rule (""Caesar's wife must be above suspicion"") means that the acceptance as a physicist must be close to 100%. 

 (4) Philosophical candidacy for treatment as a philosopher and for inclusion in the Wikipedia Philosophy Project must be as strict as the above rules for physicists. To not make this a requirement would disrespect an older field, and open it, as far as wikipedia is concerned, to a variety of cracker-barrel philosophers and head cases. 

 (5) Because doing philosophy requires a dangerously high committment to following truth, and because this committment needs to be in excess of, and opposed to, the requirements of an unjust capitalist order, the only extant philosophers are college professors, seeking or having earned tenure. Therefore, a learned seat in an accredited institution should also be a requirement. I have no doubt that this will stick in the craw of pre-wealth majors, jerks, head cases, and other mere students who unconsciously or consciously seek to destroy the university from within: (x)[isAphilosopher(x) -> isAprof(x)]. Suck on it. 

 But: 

 (1) Rand is thought to be a writer of popular novels by the educated public, not a philosopher. 

 (2) I am unaware that she had any academic connections in her life. The academic nexus today is thin and appears to consist of wealthy donors who support her mad ideas funding Rand studies, and professional philosophers wearily addressing her errors as one way of teaching philosophy to moronized Randroids in Philosophy 101 for Boneheads. 

 (3) She famously refused to encounter the thought of other philosophers such as Kant who bugged her.  

 (4) The ""Caesar's Wife"" rule in her case, in which a significant number of ""real"" philosophers think she's no philosophers, and in which many people think she was a head case, applies. If Oxford dons could some time ago issue ""non placet"" in the course of denying Derrida (the French philosopher who bugged THEM), then this rule can be applied to Rand. Substantively and after reading Derrida, I think that the dons were wrong: after investigating Rand, I give her a non placet. But the ""Caesar's Wife"" rule in her case means that because there is a critical mass of people who don't think Rand is ""almost"" a philosopher, or a ""bad"" philosopher, but a head case, she needs to be removed from the Wikipedia Philosophy Project.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 ==Why "