I recently encountered this question. Its title has little to do with the actual content of the question, and the OP never really answers a question. It mostly appears to be an attempt to promote their books and other content.

I personally both voted to close and flagged as spam. However, it was occurring to me: was voting to close really the right thing to do here? Should the question be closed, or should it be nuked entirely as spam?

The title looks like it was going to be a plausible question, but the body of the question has little legitimate content whatsoever beyond some autobiographical details and lots of self-promotion. About all I could see that was really about philosophy per se was the OP's undefended and unexplained assertation that there's "much of value in Objectivism" but that it also has unspecified "serious flaws." I suppose that there's also the claim that "no, Objectivism, as is, is not practical as a guide to life, and it's not practical for a society," but that was more written in summary of his books and articles than as an actual philosophical claim or argument. Again, the OP includes no explanation or evidence in support of those claims, nor is he actually asking the community for explanation or discussion of that.

I recently encountered this question. Its title has little to do with the actual content of the question, and the OP never really asks a question. It mostly appears to be an attempt to promote their books and other content.

I personally both voted to close and flagged as spam. However, it was occurring to me: was voting to close really the right thing to do here? Should the question be closed, or should it be nuked entirely as spam?

The title looks like it was going to be a plausible question, but the body of the question has little legitimate content whatsoever beyond some autobiographical details and lots of self-promotion. About all I could see that was really about philosophy per se was the OP's undefended and unexplained assertation that there's "much of value in Objectivism" but that it also has unspecified "serious flaws." I suppose that there's also the claim that "no, Objectivism, as is, is not practical as a guide to life, and it's not practical for a society," but that was more written in summary of his books and articles than as an actual philosophical claim or argument. Again, the OP includes no explanation or evidence in support of those claims, nor is he actually asking the community for explanation or discussion of that.