Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Laird Shaw

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Laird Shaw | Result: delete

Laird Shaw (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

  1. Laird Shaw is a self-admitted mentally ill man who suffers from psychosis and has schizophrenia. He seems completely non-noticeable to have a RationalWiki article and the page is not charitable to someone with severe mental health issues. The article was only added ~5 years back because of some trolling involving Rome Viharo and the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia controversy, see talk page. BUFO (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  2. I put his photo on page but agree he's probably not suited for an article. He's a co-founder and administrator of a paranormal forum. Has many nutty beliefs but is a schizophrenic, so that's probably expected. Is mostly a nobody (not much of a digital footprint aside from his forum). Was apparently only added because of his connections to Rome Viharo, however, that was years ago. Boar (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  3. I see no reason to keep the page if he's a nobody. Brisson (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  4. This Laird guy says he has been personally abused by demons so he clearly is not all there. He was banned on the Skeptiko forum, the only forum he is active on now is the PsienceQuest which has very low traffic. It's a bit weird to have an article based on just his forum posts. You ask yourself who is this man? Just another nutty nobody as highlighted above but does he deserve an article? I don't think so. I have done some research into this guy, it turns out he was never a fruitarian, he was kicked off the Fruitarian's Network. He used to pal around with Rome Viharo but no longer does that. Based on what I have read on the forum he is a fake vegan. Apart from his PsienceQuest and a silly website he owns he has no internet footprint apart from a Facebook account. There are not really any good sources to write an article about him. Johns (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  5. In addition to the above arguments, it is also not a good article, consisting mostly of quotes. Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  6. Support deletion. Documenting the full range of crank ideas is about ideas, and this person seems neither notable (for example, it can be argued that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene don't have any original ideas on their head, yet she is an important spreader of these ideas, so I would support keeping that article if a Articles for Deletion request would be filled for that article) nor has new ideas undocumented anywhere else in the wiki. The article also doesn't provide refutations to their ideas, only quotes, as Bongolian stated. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  7. Not notable or missional. Andrew5 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep

Merge/redirect

  1. If he's only notable for his connections to Rome Viharo, maybe it's still worth mentioning him on that page. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Nah. Seems like undue weight.Andrew5 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Goat