Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Koranteng-Pipim (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I guess it was deleted before.. I don't see why this article is necessary. BelloWello (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I had admin Gfoley4 look at the deleted version, and in their opinion this current incarnation is different enough that it doesn't qualify for G4. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I re-wrote this article to highlight the significant contribution of subject, showing how he is using his spiritual influence in the USA to impact attitudes and mindset in Africa--his home continent. Article is necessary because the subject's empowerment of youth, challenging them on excellence and mind-transformation, is having an impact both in his church and the larger African society. Article should not be deleted.HopeAfrique (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know why you like the subject, care to explain how he is notable under policy now? BelloWello (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will give two reasons: 1. His notability is established by the impact of his theological views in shaping the direction of his church—a fact that is well-attested by, e.g., reaction to his influential book Receiving the Word; this work, which was translated into other languages and extensively reviewed by scholars of his church, distinguished him as “one of the church’s most articulate critics of liberal Adventism.” (Refer to the multiple reliable sources cited in the article under “Theological Influence”). 2. The subject is also notable because his theological ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment at his CAMPUS have inspired previously disenfranchised students and young people in the USA to organize grassroots movements (such as GYC), and propelled them into “a powerful force . . . in the life of North American Adventism—and now around the world.” (Again, in the article, refer to the reliably-sourced information on GYC and its relationship to the CAMPUS founded and directed by the subject; see the section under “Youth Empowerment,”). Insofar as these verifiable facts are supported by the multiple independent sources referenced in the article, I believe the subject falls within the parameters of notability. Thanks.HopeAfrique (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, referring to the article on Generation of Youth for Christ, it appears there's significant question as to it's notability. Regardless, you still haven't provided a policy reason for why this man is notable. BelloWello (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you refer me to the policy page you have in mind, and the threshold that needs to be met on notability.HopeAfrique (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC) — HopeAfrique (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ACADEMIC. Those are a good start. BelloWello (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The author of the AfD offers multiple reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject. The reference to Generation of Youth for Christ (GYC) is only one of the two major arguments he makes. I can understand why, on the basis of one poorly-sourced article on GYC, a person may be skeptical of its notability and, hence (or by extension), the ideas of the subject who inspired and substantially impacted GYC. But the issue is not about one’s opinion about GYC’s notability, but rather its verifiability from reliable sources. In the AfD, the author has shown that the editors of the church’s official magazine (“A Great Awakening” acknowledge that GYC is “a powerful force . . . in the life of North American Adventism—and now around the world.” We can also point out that the head of the worldwide Adventist church, the GC President himself, embraced the movement by speaking to the gathering of some 7,000 people at the 2010 GYC meeting (“‘No Turning Back’”). Even the critics of GYC (“Creating Myths”) acknowledge that “[t]he agenda of the GYC has been embraced by the new GC leadership and now is being pushed by the current editor of the AR.” These are verifiable facts from independent sources. Now if the scholar whose ideas and philosophy of youth empowerment inspired the birth and growth of this grassroots movement (“With Such An Army,” Spring 2008, pp. 14-15) is not notable, I don’t know what additional evidence one needs from verifiable sources. It seems to me that, to the extent that the subject of the AfD “has made substantial impact outside academia in [his] academic capacity,” he meets, at least, criterion #7 of WP:ACADEMIC.David&#39;s Kingdom (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC) — David's Kingdom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Using Google search I could find very little if anything in the way of significant, non-trivial, reliable secondary source coverage...I don't consider the sources where he has a "speaker's bio" to be strictly secondary source or particularly reliable, as they tend to be promotional and trivial in nature (see this for example: ) and it is entirely possible that they were supplied to the people hosting him by either Koranteng-Pipim himself or staff of his. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Even if it can be proven that sources used in a biographical article were provided by the subject or people close to him, that by itself does not necessarily mean a biography is not notable. The issue ought to be settled on verifiability of sources and the neutrality of the presentation. If, indeed, the AfD offered “very little if anything in the way of significant, non-trivial, reliable secondary source coverage,” we would agree with your evaluation. But this is not the case. At least, in one instance, the Google search you employed, because of it’s limitations, failed to find a work described by the Ellen G. White Estates as “the definitive study” on “Adventist Views on Biblical and Prophetic Inspiration (1844-2000).” In this work, a leading church historian adjudged Pipim’s Receiving the Word as “one of the most influential landmarks in that debate” and one of “the two main conflicting poles around which gravitate[d] the contemporary discussions on inspiration” during the second half of the 1990s. (See pp. 534-535 of "1”). We must go beyond a mere google search to the evaluation of scholars who are knowledgeable of the issue being discussed. In addition to the above assessment by an informed historian of the church, the evidence in the AfD suggests that the singular impact of Pipim’s book on the thinking of his church fulfills the notability criterion #1 of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO.David&#39;s Kingdom (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) — David&#39;s Kingdom (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

* “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&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Notability is not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment: Note to the closing admin, HopeAfrique, David's Kingdom, and TsunamiEarthquake have been confirmed as sockpuppets, see the investigation. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing significant found at Google News Archive, very few citations at Google Scholar. He has written a ton of books, mostly published by the perfectly legitimate religious publisher Berean Books - but there is no indication that the books, or he himself, have been taken note of by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2011 (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.