Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Brickner


 * 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   keep.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

David Brickner

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have doubts about the notability here, and I think it should be reviewed. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete subject may be notable (as he has had coverage away from this "one event" | here for instance but, this article is 100% WP:COATRACK. Better to get rid of it now and write a proper one. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I suppose improvement in a timely fashion is better than starting over. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a notable guy. the page is being attacked because of sarah Palin.  He heads a large organization.  It and he are in the headlines all the time.  I'm heading to the airport .  I hope that some responsible editor keeps the page up.Elan26 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26
 * Comment He may be notable as head of a well-known national organization (not sure if he meets WP:BIO myself), but the article should be about David Brickner, not focus on a single appearance he made an Alaskan church. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This man is the head of a highly visible, controversial, albeit very small religious denomination. Wikipedia has quite good coverage of these New Religious Movements and the only thing that surprises me about the article is that it hadn't been written earlier.Jmkleeberg (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am surprised the article did not exist earlier, too. I first ran into Jews for Jesus when I was in Israel in the 1980's.  Their head person then was a Notorious anti Semite, too.  The members I talked to denounced him.  Similarly, we should not paint the entire Jews for Jesus with remarks this guy made.  I think most peole join not because of Brickner's views, but because they are Jews who converted to Jesus and they like the title of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs)


 * Keep He's the head of a notable religious movement.  OTOH, the re-created coatrack about Palin's pastor is irrelevant  - one source leads nowhere, none show Palin was present, and there is original research about that sermon in the article. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —GRBerry 02:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Definite Keep - I agree entirely with Jmkleeberg's remarks -- hard to believe nobody had even started this article when he's been head of the org for 12 years. Cgingold (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTE KEEP I heard about this guy on cable news, before Palin was nominated, when he claimed that Palestinian bulldozer terror attack was God's punishment on the Jews. Does this trigger any memories?  It was not that long ago, and was one of the most covered terror attacks in Isreal (images from Iraq being down, the media reran the images over and over, with Brickner's rants described over the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs)
 * A better KEEP argument is that all Jews for Jesus should not be painted with Brickners anti Semitic remarks, so he should have his own page. I think the guy is also invoved in massive litigation for something, if anyone want to look it up. EricDiesel (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

*Info for KEEP If his speaking at Sarah Palin's church is a basis of the DELETE request, all of the sources at the time of my writing this PREDATE Palin's nomination. Every article that ties to a controversy involving Palin should not be the target of Deletion. I am new here; is there an Wikipedia expression for a "deletion attack on all articles related to a politician"? EricDiesel (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) EricDiesel (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * More for KEEP There are over 20,000 web pages for "David Brickner" AND Jews on Google. This many web pages can not exist for someone who is not notable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please stop for a moment and reread what I wrote. I'm saying the guy probably is notable but, that the article is being used as a coatrack (hence saying weak). You don't help the project or the specific articles you seem to be concerned about by making Wikipedia content about politics or accusations against concerned editors. My opinion on this entire group of articles has 100% nothing to do with politics and is based firmly in Wikipedia policies and guidelines for what is and isn't appropriate. too be honest more afraid you are hurting the legitimate keep arguments at these articles with some of your behaviour but, have been having trouble trying to find a nice way to ask you to stop. I'm trying now. Please "vote" once on these subjects supporting your "vote" with policies and guidelines of the project and desist from continueing to "hound/harass/spam" the discussion. BTW the answer to "is there an Wikipedia expression for a "deletion attack on all articles related to a politician?" is that you are probably looking for WP:POINT or similar. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am just learning the terms. I was responding to "I have doubts about the notability here" at the very top, and assumed from reading the definition of coatrack, and seeing names from five other Palin deleted pages, that coatrack referred to being a cover for a negative article about Pailn.  Should I delete my middle entry re- Palin? Thanks EricDiesel (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it needs to stay there for transparency purposes. You can however strike it through if you wish by added to the beginning and to the end. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Jews for Jesus is a notable organization. Its current head warrants an article. The articles needs cleaning up, but that is beside the point. --Crunch (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Jews for Jesus is a notable (though controversial) organisation. This suggests that its current head is also notable.  All WP:COATRACK material appears to have been removed, this has left a rather poor article, little more than a stub, but that suggests that the article should be improved, not deleted.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep--semi-protect and BLP Watch it as needed, but Brickner is a notable religious leader whose absence from Wikipedia would diminish the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2008 (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.