Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Donahue (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. nn-bio and/or website. Madchester 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Donahue

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Aaron Donahue is apparently a "remote viewer" who posts his predictions to his website (alexa rank ~300,000). Guess which is the top website linking in to his site? You got it: Wikipedia. There are 982 Google hits for Aaron Donahue, and even combining all plausible mis-spellings still gets very few hits (around a third the number of hits I get). Occasional radio appearance is also no big deal since I've been interviewed on national radio as well. It is uncritical in the extreme, though has been worse in the past (see Talk:Aaron Donahue).

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Donahue, kept on the basis of three "votes", but that did include MgM and Andrew Lenahan. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding my usual practice of agreeing with MgM in particular, I still say this is a hagiography of a person of no apparent notability - a reasonably skilled self-promoter at best. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why the article about Aaron Donahue is a problem and a insult to your policies.

  • He has been on TV several times, including on TV Asahi´s S.O.S, and the in search of... Paranormal investigation programme.
  • He has been in the movie Suspect Zero
  • He has been on Coast to Coast several times, where he talked about his idea´s and those of others.
  • He has been on many other radio shows including The Bull in Canada and a esoteric radios how in South-Africa
  • He has hit the news with his auction of the pope´s soul, which got him banned from E-bay.
  • He is the ´´leader `` of a small ideology, which has several web sites, a message board and the ability to host a independant, good quality radio show.

I find it rather insulting that some local TV minister, or university professor would be able to to get on this web site without any serious problem. But someone who is out of the mainstream is being haunted by Christian or otherwise anti-esoteric individuals. This has nothing to do with the article being used by the luciferian order to spread there word, if you are unsatisfied about the article you could post a message too improve it.

This article was for the most part written by me, and a individual of Christian denomination. This is NOT fandom written by just luciferians, but it is a way to spread our world view as much as the article on Christianity or Islam is.

RGTraynor: using wikipedia as advertisement has nothing to do with the validation of the article Deizio: same for this gentlemen here, not to mention you don't have to have been on opera to qualify as a remote viewer or a person of special important. JerryOrr: writes and i quote him ´´Don't let this get through`` sadly this sounds more like someone who lets his emotional side rule rather then his logic. The above mentioned facts are more then enough to grant Aaron a article. RPIRED: Sock puppets? How childish and that for someone who calls himself a Bachelor of Science.

Nor does it mean the other luciferians who want to keep the article make very good points, either. It does mean that most of those people are unlike me. Not intellectuals. We are people who sense the world via experiences and emotion.

Cro..Scream

  • Keep but this article needs serious attention. There's a lot of info in there, none of it sourced, and it seems likely a lot of it comes from inappropriate sources. Nonetheless, he's at least notable in his (weird) field. Mangojuicetalk 15:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Is notable, or claims to be notable? An Alexa of 300K with Wikipedia as the main feeder sucks -- you would think, if he were actually notable in his field, he wouldn't have to rely on Wikipedia for advertising. I want some third-party, neutral sources for this one. RGTraynor 17:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I might be able to scale it down. not to mention that this article is written by a luciferian and a christian, any other luciferian involvement after that was small. Cro..Scream
    • He was on coast to coast several time. he made tv several time and gave one mayor tv station in japan one of its biggest rating in years. he is a leader of a ideology or however you want to call it. he has been in the news. all these things give hime the right too a small article.
|
Horrible Demon Beast.
Enlarge
Horrible Demon Beast.
  • Delete, skilled self-promoter covers it. Come back when you're the resident psychic on Oprah. Deizio talk 15:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, probably vanity, entirely unsourced (unless you consider the External links section, which provides such credible links as Yahoo groups, LiveJournal, and a Tripod user site). Don't let this get through AfD again. --JerryOrr 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rklawton 20:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced vanispamcruftisement. Brian G. Crawford 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, total self-promotion. NawlinWiki 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs a serious clean-up. Also, this was written and edited by people who are involved with Luciferianism including myself. This is not in any way some sort of plan for promotion. Aaron himself probably cares less about this article and does not rely on Wikipedia for advertising. He is very well known within the world of remote viewing because of the controversial statements he has made, his involvement with Luciferianism, and his accuracy. All the information provided in the article came from word of mouth (probably right directly from his mouth) or from personal websites. Oublier 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pending verification. Ziggurat 23:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ardenn 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 22:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- MaNeMeBasat 10:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Its not self promotion, only informational. As is everything else on this site.-- Obey Your Master 8:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Hes not just a great remote viewer, but one with proven accuracy. i would agree to a toning down of the self-promotional aspect if there appears to be one (to my taste, there is none), but there si no basis to delete the entry. he has as much of a right to be wikipedia as lenord Nemoy (he voice in search of, which mr. donahue was on) or the pope, both claim to be spiritual leader (granted only one is legit) Poo on face
A dead person
Enlarge
A dead person
  • Keep -- as legitimate as anyting else here. hes a real person, therefore... Boogaloo Bill
    • Comment - signature is for nonexistent user; fake signature added by Cro..Scream. Comment added by 68.60.86.204 --JerryOrr 18:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This man has been on television once in U.S. (In Search Of...), is credited in the movie Suspect Zero, has his own website, radio show, and has been on several other radio programs in South Africa, Canada, U.S., etc. Including Coast to Coast AM. YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS TO DELETE. --Behemoth418 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, This information is vital for mankind. Leave it here and let time be the judge. tcwon1
  • Delete per above and because sockpuppets tend to make you scratch your head... - RPIRED 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - wow, 6 keep votes entered over the course of 64 minutes, all by newly registered (or non-existent) users and anonymous IPs. Quite a coincidence... --JerryOrr 11:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. Cups
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Aaron_Donahue_%28second_nomination%29_29d8.html"