Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Alghawi


 * 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 was   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Alghawi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bio of blatantly non-notable person. Claim to notability appears to be that he's an "activist" who handles the Facebook and Twitter pages for a right wing PAC. Presumably an autobiography. Speedy and notability tags persistently removed by an IP, skipping PROD since presumably that will be removed as well. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  GregJackP   Boomer!   12:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blatantly non-notable. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The guy wants a career in politics, so he thinks the way to do it is to come here and write an article about himself.  Well, that's not how it works on Wikipedia, and it's not how it works in the political world, either.  Fails WP:POLITICIAN--by a landslide.  Qworty (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Previously speedied  The poor kid.  Three more years have gone by, and he's no more notable than he was in 2009. Qworty (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete* Hairhorn's usage of the term "right-wing" in a pejorative sense is a clear bias and I request that he be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaytonDarkhorse (talk • contribs)
 * LOL. You're accusing another editor of bias while you yourself have been busy vandalizing the AfD discussion  about an article you wrote about yourself??  LOLOL.  I must say you do act like a certain breed of politician, although you are not a notable one. Qworty (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Qworty considering your reasoning is nothing but ad hominem it's clear you have a bias as well. This is not an article about myself. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given the fact that you are now guilty of 3RR, of vandalizing maintenance tags, and of vandalizing the AfD discussion, there are now three different reasons to block you. Qworty (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing the tags were honest mistakes, as I am new at this. However, removing your autobiography tag was NOT vandalism. The fact that you posted it without proof should be construed as vandalism itself. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The evidence. Alghawi is from Dayton, Ohio and lives in Houston, Texas.  You're from Dayton and you're editing out of Houston.  That's quite a coincidence, don't you think?  How ever do you explain it? Qworty (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that user originally wrote this page in his sandbox, since blanked. Hairhorn (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had noticed that earlier. Looks like a fourth reason to ban him, for WP:SOCK.  Anyone care to open an official investigation? Qworty (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How do I know that you didn't invent the user Aarong2029 yourself? The first user who tried to delete Aaron Alghawi was Delta161 and that user had no prior edit history. Was Delta a code word for delete? 161 is a numerical representation of Aaron Alghawi's initials A = 1 F = 6. AFA = 161. The page doesn't have much of an edit history on it. If I was using both pages, what's the point? Why would I create two usernames that could be associated with the page? Why not just one? Why none? And why wouldn't he make his own sandbox private? Just walk away, Qworty and Hairhorn, you have clear biases. I'll upload more sources as I find them to add to the significance of the subject. I'm doing more articles on the RLC national committee as well as time permits. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "As time permits?" You mean, before you're blocked for your four documented violations of Wikipedia policies? Qworty (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean as I feel like because I have a life unlike the stereotypical "internet tough guy" that stalks Wikipedia pages of those with different political beliefs trying to get them deleted DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're not being deleted because you're a Republican.  We have thousands of articles about Republicans, many of them from your own state .  You're being deleted because you have failed to become a notable one. Qworty (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: autobiography - as Hairhorn has already discovered, DaytonDarkhorse also edited several other pages (e.g. U of TX A&M notable alumni) - all of which pointed to this page. Ironic that I was accused of registering solely to delete this page. By that reasoning, it certainly appears DaytonDarkhorse registered solely to create this individual presence on Wikipedia. Also, sorry to burst your code breaking bubble, but my username has nothing to do with you (although if it were, cracking that code might be the most notable thing you've done). Please do yourself a favor and review Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Delta161 (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm a little irked by the tone this discussion has taken. We should do our best to gently explain the concept of WP:NOTABLE to DaytonDarkhorse and leave it at that. We don't need to point out with smug glee that Aaron Alghawi has "failed to become a notable" person or lodge WP:SOCK allegations against new users who probably aren't familiar with the rules. I understand that it might be fun and amusing to denigrate those seeking to use WP as an outlet to massage their ego, but I'm not sure it's in the best spirit of the project. NickCT (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and I will admit my contribution to such in the last comment. I originally tagged this article in good faith for deletion as a blatantly non-notable person. However, it is not irrelevant to note that the article is quite apparently WP:AUTO (ref content written in sandbox, personal details of subject in article, username/url geographies, other pages edited, etc.).  Further, with regard to “tone,” DaytonDarkhorse should rightfully be exposed as the instigator of such by repeatedly violating Wikipedia rules (even after warned) and acting contentiously with long-standing editors (accusations of bias, etc.).Delta161 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. Let's look at this with utter sobriety.  In 2009, Aaron Alghawi came here to write an article about himself that was speedily deleted for lack of notability . Then, in September of 2012, Aaron Alghawi returned to do it again, this time starting in a sandbox .  Then, after creating a sock puppet, he moved the article into the main space of Wikipedia .  Aaron Alghawi didn't stop there.  Three days later, in a clumsy attempt to cover up what he had done, he blanked the sandbox .  He then set about spamming the link to his article onto other articles, including "famous" people born on his birthday, a political group , and a college . When the article he had written about himself was quite rightly nominated for speedy deletion for lack of notability, he responded by removing the deletion tag himself, not once, but FOUR times    .  The fourth time, he vandalized the notability tag for good measure.  While doing so, he logged out in order to create a third sock--his IP address--and unwittingly revealed that he was editing from his new hometown of Houston.  When the article came to AfD, Aaron Alghawi responded by vandalizing the WP:AUTO tag FOUR times, in violation of 3RR.  (Whew!  This is tiring me out, so please just look in the edit history.)  He didn't stop there.  He then stepped into the AfD discussion and began vandalizing it .  Now, how exactly is Aaron Alghawi the "victim" in all of this?  What exactly is "fun and amusing" about all of this?  He should be banned for 3RR, for vandalizing maintenance tags, for vandalizing deletion tags, for sock puppetry, and for vandalizing the deletion discussion.  He's a troublemaker who will break every rule in order to establish and preserve a false notability on Wikipedia, for the purpose of advancing his own political ambitions in the Republican Party.  Qworty (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't say he was was a victim. There's no reason to bash perpetrators though. Professional policing is polite policing. I'm not sure this guy's "sock"ing was done with malicious intent, and I think if we WP:AGF we wouldn't be quite so critical. He's obviously a new user. New users rarely sock maliciously. And anyways, even if you do want to believe this guy is the worst of the worst, you ought not feed the trolls. NickCT (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to delete the page, just get it over with and shut up about it. How's that for a troublemaker? The page will be back in the future, as will the other RLC board member pages, once more sources are found. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. First of all, if the person meets notability standards, the sources are typically not difficult to find with a simple web search. This article itself presents no basis for notability (by Wikipedia standards). Being on the RLC board, blogging, and volunteering for a congressional candidate do not meet the Wikipedia standards. The RLC is a notable organization. Some of its members/board members are probably notable, others are not. That's all. Taking it personally is just one more reason to avoid autobiographical work.  Delta161 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Salt this article. The article's author is threatening that once it's deleted, "the page will be back."  He's already recreated it one time, after it was speedied.  Clearly, he's going to continue to recreate and recreate and recreate this non-notable autobiography as many times as he can.  He should be prevented from doing so. Qworty (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Salt - add this to my delete !vote, above, salt for the reasons Qworty stated.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Qworty, it's not an autobiography. Other mods: the next time it is posted I will make sure it has enough sources to met the notability guidelines. Go ahead and delete it for now. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- As author of the article, I move to close this discussion and delete the article immediately. If it does not meet the notability guidelines then I will not fight its deletion. And I will use more scrutiny in my future articles. However from the language of Hairhorn and Qworty as well as complaints on Qworty's talk page, I still stand by my claims that they were motivated by a political bias, even if they were right about the non-notability. DaytonDarkhorse (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.