Wikipedia:Deletion review/Aaron Donahue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was closed, kept deleted and protected. - brenneman{L} 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Donahue

  ATTENTION!

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

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Recreating the Aaron c. Donahue article. This article was deleted, yet we are talking about a person notable enough to be given space on wiki.

Legimate media apearances.

  • Movie(´s)
  • He co-starred in "Naughty Boys Gone Wild" (a homosexual adult film) with Gay film Superstar Glenn Flanders.
    • He had a minor role in the movie Subject Zero. [1]
  • TV Series and News Broadcasts
    • Aaron has appeared in the paranormal investigation programme, In Search Of.. where he could be seen remote-viewing a target and finding that target inside a geometric dome. The pilot episode was called Psychic Spies. [2] [3] This episode will air occasionally on the Sci-Fi channel to this day.
    • Aaron has been on TV Asahi´s S.O.S, where he was asked to do different remote viewing techniques for the TV crew there. [4]
  • Radio
    • Coast to Coast has a biography of Aaron on their Internet website, and has invited him on five seperate occasions.[5]
    • He has appeared on The Bull, a Canadian FM radio show. [6]
    • And on a South African talk show [7]
    • A Small but respectable independant online radio show had Aaron on several times. [8]

Evidence that he and his Luciferian Order are of encyclopedic size.

  • Several different profesional websites. [9] [10] [11]
  • Has a yahoo site, and forum, both containing 480 or more members. [12] [13]
  • A legimate businese venture. [14]
  • News and Information Broadcasting sites. [15][16]
  • A profesional, continiously run radioshow. [17]
  • Ed Dames has used Aaron´s name to sell his remote viewing equipment, without Aaron's consent.[18]

Non-Luciferian links pertaining to Aaron:

Luciferian links pertaining to Aaron

Wikipedia:Biography gives these different reasons why Aaron should deserve a article

  • Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. Nobody has been able to beat aaron in a remote viewing session neither has any of his predictions been proven to be false, this makes him technically speaking, the best in his field
  • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: besides the small movie role, he has been in tv shows and on many radioshows.
    • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
    • An independent biography there have been different organizations who wrote articles about him on their web sites, most notably being the Coast to Coast biography
    • Name recognition he has been on one of America´s larges radio shows, and has been heard by millions on five seperate occasions
  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events FOX news mentioned that Aaron was a cultist, though this can NOT be verivied with a link
  • Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject? The article can contain atleast 20 written lines about aaron
  • Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? [19] 18 cliks further and his name still pops up 867 for Aaron Donahueand 13,500 for Aaron c. Donahue making him a notable internet personality

This should entitle Aaron to:

  • 5 to 10 lines: about his place in the movie Suspect Zero, the In Search Of.. paranormal investigation programme. And The Japanese TV show S.O.S. from TV Asahi.
  • 10 to 15 lines: about the 5 times he was on Coast to Coast, and other numerous radio interviews. Canadian radio show The Bull, South-African talkshow 702 Johannesburg, Online radio show Ghostly Talk.
  • 10 to 15 lines about: Aarons relationship with Ed Dames, his attempt at establishing a esoteric order. And his new ventures of starting a online continiously broadcasted radioshow, and remote viewing classes.
  • 5 to 10 lines about: what Aaron claims about himself, his past and the foundations of his belief. In order to flesh out his character to anyone who might be reading the article and provide a neutral point of view

Cro..Scream

  • Endorse Deletion. Note that the subject still fails WP:BIO and/or WP:WEB requirements. Also, the article's AfD showed a supermajority supporting deletion, with many Support votes coming from suspected sockpuppets. --Madchester 06:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Propose nullifying madchesters because he does not give a honest account of why he thinks aaron should not deserve a article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro..Scream (talk • contribs)
    • The biography section is still in discussion so the ctiteria are still shaky, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and the reason why its deleted because the many articles arent sourched, and there is reason to believe that people have been using the page for advertisement. he has proven he is able to conduct him remote viewing technics with accuracy, which both the in search of.. and tv asahi recordings show. i also disagree about the web notability. Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site .... This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. aaron has been on several websites, one of them being Coast to Coast which is one of the biggest radio shows in America. not to mention many different radioshows and tv programmes. as i have listed above. ed dames has used aaron´s name to sell his remote viewing lessons, and is advertising that site on many other remote viewing websites The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. though this isnt a strong one. i have to get coast to coast, ed dames atempt at using aaron´s name. and the many websites in the remote viewing and esoteric community that mention him, some of which i have posted above. Cro..Scream
    • Even as the handling of this AfD wasn't conventional (scilicet, because the debate was closed after fewer than five days and because the closing admin also "voted", just five minutes before closing), no explanation can be essayed that any close other than delete was reasonable. Inasmuch as the AfD was reasonably and properly closed (and, to be sure, the subject is nn), and inasmuch as nothing significant has been adduced here to suggest that we ought to relist the article, I endorse closure. Joe 07:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I beg to disagree, have i not proven with this short review that aaron is known enough? if you are a regulare listener of coast to coast you would like to have some background information about there regulare guest. Cro..Scream
  • Endorse deletion as nominator at last AfD (which included the usual crop of new and unregistered votes. Per my nomination, I could not find enough reliable neutral references to verify that the subject was being covered neutrally; in fact I am pretty confident it was not covered neutrally, since it gave the overwhelming opinion that remote viewing is in some way a real phenomenon. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • propose nullifying just zis guy you know´s vote, because he lets his personal feeling concerning remote viewing get in the way of his better judgement, not to mention he did not accurately read the article because if he did he would see i proposed to rewrite the article and use aarons media apearance as a basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro..Scream (talk • contribs)
      • In whihc case we must, of course, nullify your vote, since your view on remote viewing is also distorting your perception of the notability of the subject and the neutrality of the article. Just zis Guy you know? 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats why i prepose rewriting it, if you look at my review you will see that aaron has more then enough other points of interest to write about. not to mention that your own personal opinions on remote viewing are irevelevant. the american military used it, and there is more then enough evidence that aarons many predictions are legimite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro..Scream (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse deletion - furthermore, this is an improper use of the Deletion review process. From WP:DRV:
    Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the (action) specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
    Cro..Scream is attempting to restart the debate, when there was an overwhelming consensus in the AfD. Cro..Scream has not identified any errors in the process, and thus there is no basis for the Deletion review. --JerryOrr 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion I wasn't involved in this AfD, but enjoyed watching it, as it was a textbook case of blatant sock/meatpuppetry and outright forgery. One anon IP registered two separate votes, forged a signature on one (as "Oublier"), while Cro..Scream forged a different signature onto the other ("Boogaloo Bill"). There was not one Keep vote that looked remotely valid. Fan1967 16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion...sockmeatspampuppets ahoy!  RasputinAXP  c 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • this isnt about sock puppetry this is about discussing if the article is valid. i want to make this a honest discussion but you people keep behaving like monkeys. i dare any off you to give a good reason why he shouldnt have a article, if these criteria are not met i have the right to reastablish the aaron donahue article via wikipedia guide lines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro..Scream (talk • contribs)
      • Comment: At this point in the discussion, user:Cro..Scream went back to a number of prior edits and removed the attributions. See diff.
      • This is about reviewing the Deletion process. JerryOrr stated it perfectly above. The deletion process was followed properly and honestly by everyone but you, and your asking for "honest discussion" is ludicrous. Fan1967 19:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, valid AfD, I will boldly admit to not having read the voluminous so-called evidence presented by Cro..Scream, who is, undoubtedly, Donahue himself. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Aaron is misunderstood and has many enemies. I see this as a ploy by those people to have this deleted. People don’t stumble on to this site accidentally people come here searching for him. They want to know who he is and come to your site for information. That’s the point. You start to censor information here than you’re going against everything wikipedia stands for.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abk24 (talk • contribs) . Indef-blocked as sock puppet or undeclared role account.
  • Endorse deletion A long list of not-so-notable accomplishments does not add up to notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted As Jahiegel points out, there were exceedingly minor defects in process here, and I might be inclined to support a complaint from Starblind or MgM (as regular contributors involved in the first AfD.) However, the DRV nomination above is offered by a seemingly biased party, and its claims are not compelling in any event. Whatever its slight defects, consensus at the second AfD was clear, and I see no reason to overturn it. Xoloz 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP I understand some feel strongly about deleting his profile. This matter of OPINIONS has turned into a conflict underlined with prejudice and bias censorship with no clear rationality. Is there ANYBODY here who agrees the internet should be censored? Please reconsider deleting Aaron Donahue's article and help fight the internet censorship that is already destroying the freedom of internet and information. Please forgo any personal opinions and do the right thing. Repectfully -
    • —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Adam14113 (talk • contribs) , whose only edits are to this page and to a now-deleted bogus AfD page for the article in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Indef-blocked as sock puppet or undeclared role account.
  • DO NOT delete the entry on Aaron C. Donahue! Obviously, if an entry or article contains incorrect information, it should be updated. What must not happen is to censor a valid entry or remove it entirely, on the basis of the subject's opinions or some religious/political prejudice. An action such as that simply flies in the face of the intent, mission and spirit of Wikipedia! The article on Aaron C. Donahue should be restored immediately! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdcafunnyguru (talk • contribs) . Indef-blocked as sock puppet or undeclared role account.
    • Do you think a discussion like this should be ended in just 4 days? [20] surely people have the right to catch up, and try to convey there point. not to mention that the ATTACK on my character has nothing to do with the validation of this article. I have tried to contact many of the participants in this discussion on many occasions, yet they seem happy to ignore me. to any luciferian we are being attacked right here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Luciferian Order isnt it strange that the article gets a deletion order 3 times at a row by three different people, surely this cant be a coincidence. i wonder if i send one of the moderators a message where we can discuss rewriting it, would he send me a message back i doubt that. i deleted the first two delete messages because the reason given was incorrect. Cro..Scream
  • KEEP Everyone that seeks knowledge about Aaron C Donahue let them find it. Correct the error. Restore the article in keeping with fair access to information. Suuloukku 11:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Indef-blocked as sock puppet or undeclared role account.
    • So your supposed to be my alter Ego, i would have picked a better name. I wonder how low people will stoop to get a article deleted, saying that random people are my impersonators. saying i am aaron. People check my IP number i am DUTCH, unless aaron is taking a plane back and forth from the netherlands i doubt i can be him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro..Scream (talk • contribs)
  • Please open a new AfD to ensure a fair vote and discussion. A lot of people are only now getting to know about the deletion of the article. Flowingjawa 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Brand new user (contribs), made one edit to a typo on a talk page, then came straight to this discussion. Fan1967 13:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel comfortable that we'll hear from pretty much everybody that Cro knows. Not that it will change anything. Fan1967 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, and keep it protected. This came to my attention during an AFD for James Donahue, and on the whole it seems like a pretty appalling set of policy violations in service of an article that doesn't meet bio qualifications. Somebody needs to go back and kill all the inbound wikilinks to the page as well. -Hit bull, win steak 13:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: people are finding out about acd one way or another and considering wiki's popularity, there should be an article on here with more info. the complete lack of one would leave a fairly obvious hole in coverage. complete deletion is not a reasonable response to the complaint of inadequate info. it's an extreme response that, frankly, reeks of bias, censorship and personal feelings. if something is not clear, then the opportunity to clarify needs to be provided. info is info and the internet is indebted to the free dispensation of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.128.141 (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. Process was respected in the AfD, then abused by the pro-Donahue side (article recreated multiple times, sockpuppets) and they shouldn't be rewarded for that. · rodii · 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP: what is wrong with our world today? Everyday we have more and more civil rights taken away. What ever happened to freedom of speech and the concept of a free country? The internet is one of the last places that any of these civil liberties somewhat exist and to start monitoring content and censoring is WRONG. Why do people keep giving into control of corporations and controlled mass-media, which manipulates information into a brainwashing mechanism to control people into believing certain things and allows no room for opinion?
    We as human beings and citizens of the so called “free country” have the right to form our own opinion and validate whatever information we come in contact with. We do not need a controlling media giant to censor and tell us what is right and wrong, or what is true or not. Nobody can justify that but ourselves, so let there be freedom of information, and let us judge, not you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikaarch (talk • contribs)
    • This is not a free speech issue. No-one is stopping you from creating your own site about Mr. Donahue, if that's something you'd like to do. However, this particular site belongs to someone else, and as such, anything added to it ultimately remains here at his pleasure (and by extension, that of the policies and administrative bodies he has established). -Hit bull, win steak 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yet another brand new user who came straight to this discussion immediately after registering. Fan1967 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What country are you talking about? There are people from all over the world on Wikipedia. And "free speech" does not apply to privately-owned websites, which is what Wikipedia is. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • To answer the question posed by Erikaarch, one of the things which is wrong with our world today is that everybody who has a barrow to push feels it is their right to use Wikipedia to promote their cause. Just zis Guy you know? 20:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think AIDS, overpopulation and global warming are really bad problems in our world today. Wikipedia not having a page on Aaron Donahue is also pretty bad, but not quite as bad. · rodii · 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: How in the world could Ed Dames have a Wikipedia entry and not Aaron C. Donahue? I just don't get it. -Funkymuskrat—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.137.70 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep If ED Dames has an wikipedia article and is cybersquatting on Aarons name http://aaroncdonahue.com/for the benefit of only himself and no one else why wouldn't Aaron deserve a page? This is blatant trickery by another cybersquatter with nothing else to do but sit in the chatroom provided by the good folks in the inner Luciferian order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trixr4kids (talk • contribs) .
    • Note: Above is user's first edit. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.