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.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Briggs[edit]

Autobiography. References are subject's affiliations' websites and anyway do not verify the article content. De-prodded with comment edited due to faulty assumption by pam...I've checked with sources, etc...pam has not...just her opinion...but don't mess up wikipedia over opinion. (For the record, I am a he.) Pan Dan 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again...you have to watch this Pan Dan...he likes to tag pages he does not like...emotions and opinions do not belong here. I too checked the links and they reach far beyond suject's affiliations....shame on you Pan Dan...you need to stop your nonsense and deleting pages without proper wikipedia process...this pages was discussed and reviewed long before you...get with the program...

Florenda 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. If this isn't proper Wikipedia process, what is? Phony Saint 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent, reliable and verifiable sources. The process is being followed by bringing the pages up for discussion. Attacking the nominator personally is what's not following the process. DarkAudit 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of sources, but they aren't reliable --Haemo 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nom said, the sources do not verify the article content (aside from establishing the existence of the guy and of some of the organizations mentioned). When all of the extraneous tinsel is removed, what's left is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO, I think. Deor 01:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete in case there are no sources. At face value, the work done seems to have reached beyond the ordinary expectations for a clergyman. And if so, there should be independent sources; I am not reassured that the claims for number of affiliates and missions does not seem to be well supported by the actual ones listed in his group's own web site. As for any person or organization where there certainly ought to be many good sources, and there do not seem to be, we need to be particularly careful. DGG 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.