The result was delete. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was deleted before.. I don't see why this article is necessary. BelloWello (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep votes and comments by confirmed socks. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Keep vote by confirmed sock. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
* “Keep.” According to the WP:BASIC policy “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” As an Adventist theologian and author of over a dozen books (including his controversial book Receiving the Word), Pipim has been notably influential in the world of ideas as evidenced by the multiple reliable sources cited in the AfD under “Theological Influence.” I will offer three reasons: (1) In a book described by one reviewer as “the most authoritative study of Seventh-day Adventism,” Malcolm Bull and Keith Lockhart’s describe Pipim as “one of the church’s most articulate critics of liberal Adventism,” mentioning his book Receiving the Word as playing a notable and successful role in the 1990s in the return of his church to the “plain reading of the Bible” (Seeking a Sanctuary 2nd ed., pp. 278, 35). We may disagree with the assessment of Pipim’s work by Bull and Lockhart, but we cannot bracket their work among some insignificant, trivial secondary sources. (2). A cursory look at the endnote references mentioning Receiving the Word in the AfD will show that some 18 of the church’s leading scholars reviewed to this work. On the pro side are George W. Reid, Norman R. Gulley, Paul Gordon, Raoul Dederen, Clifford Goldstein, Alberto R. Timm, William H. Shea, Keith Burton, C. Raymond Holmes, Artur A. Stele, and Randall W. Younker. On the con side are: Alden Thompson, George R. Knight, Charles Scriven, Norman H. Young, Timothy E. Crosby, and Robert M. Johnston. Surely, these thought leaders of the church who reviewed Pipim’s book are not insignificant, trivial, or unreliable secondary sources. (3) We appreciate the genuine attempt to uphold an objective standard for notability. But unless the independent scholarly sources mentioned above are to be dismissed as inconsequential or unreliable, the facts above suggest that Pipim has satisfied the defintion of WP:BASIC, and has met at least the criterion of WP:GNG or criterion #1 of WP:ACADEMIC.TsunamiEarthquake (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC) — TsunamiEarthquake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] |