RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Chris Ladd

Chris Ladd | Result: keep

Chris Ladd (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Keep

1. RW don't need no "notability" criterion. Osaka is just salty. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
2. I thought his blog was popular enough. I figured he was also noteworthy because he offers criticisms of religious fundamentalism, global warming denialism, authoritarianism, etc. from a centre-right perspective as opposed to the usual center/centre-left criticisms which I also like but it still offers more diversity. He also seems to upset the clogosphere wingnuts often enough to be at least relevant but I don't know I didn't think anyone would mind having a small page on him sorry. We seem to have pages on more obscure "internet kooks" and the like though. ClothCoat (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

   Look, I'm as happy as anyone that an endangered species of Republican exists frantically trying to prevent their party from jumping off a cliff, but this guy's just a precinct captain who has a blog. His points are not new and there are similar pundits with a far larger audience. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

   I was thinking about it and I think the page should stay for now because I've seen people use him as a source on blogosphere page and so on and this way if people want to know more about him or how reliable he is (or isn't) then they could look it up here to know. I think the fact he's not as wide read as someone like Josh Barro is actually a good case for an article on him because no one on the Web has covered Ladd's views before and this way they have somewhere to reference in the future. That way we have articles on sources that are useful and (fairly) popular but still not covered anyways by, say, Wikipedia. That's just my two cents though if people overwhelmingly decide to delete and only have him on the blogroll I'll understand. ClothCoat (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Not influential enough? I don't think some of you quite grok that having articles on people who might not be "influential enough" means that people are going to come here to learn more about them. The same goes for anything else. I don't have the heart to go look at how many articles have been deleted because they were on topics that the 5 people who delete shit on this site didn't think were a big enough deal. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. Not influential enough for an article (should be in the Blogroll instead) Osaka Sun (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)