Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Lawrence Lipton

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. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W. Lawrence Lipton[edit]

Suspected auto bio. Seems to vastly over estimate own significance. Main claim to fame seems to be DNA Spread Theory which is also up for deletion Salix (talk): 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable autobiography. An interesting guy, but not one who is going to meet our standards for inclusion. Fences and windows (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probable? Did you notice his name at birth compared to contrib name? Angst? The actual fact of the auto part is immaterial but it sounds like it based on rather trivial personal events: Became an early AOL power user? Negotiated leases? I mean among some central notability a few details can be ok or deleted but in context of larger article these are funny. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete. This article reflects biographical data available in most university libraries and online portals to recognized biographical databases. The "See also" section evidences a dozen instances of Marquis Publication Who's Who recognition in at least three areas of endeavor spanning a period of two decades. The text of those listings indicate international recognition and award in several European and Asian nations. Absent contribution by an industry or personal publicist/biographer, information available through publications such as Marquis or newspaper articles/columns would appear to be the only objective basis for verification of biographical data under the standards for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreknangst (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of people have been listed in the various editions and sections of Who's Who. What has William Lawrence Lipton done which would meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and which reliable sources can be used to verify this? Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no demonstration of notability (Marquis Who's Who will publish an entry on anybody who's willing to pay for one) & badly written & poorly sourced autobiography. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Marquis does not require payment for inclusion, I am not even sure that one can get listed simply by paying a fee (I have been included in several of their editions and that was purely their initiative). Having said this, I agree that Marquis' listings don't establish any notability and are not a particular honor: their selection policy seems to be rather inclusive (logical: the more people are included, the more might buy a commemorative plaque or the actual editions in which they appear, which seems to be the main source of income for this outfit). In addition, all info they publish is provided by the subject, so this is not an independent RS. --Crusio (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to search this material independently; I found little to no mention of the subject's books or theories anywhere. One item here that could possibly convey notability is the subject's alleged connection to the Kuchars and Andy Warhol, but this is not independently verified nor reported in reliable sources. Article doesn't meet even a very generous standard of notability. To avoid confusion, please note there was a different author Lawrence Lipton (1898-1975) who was James Lipton's father and was connected to the Beat Generation poets.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely autobiography and COI (which of course doesn't mean the article couldn't be fixed if the subject was indeed notable), and as the article creator inadvertently points out, the lack of sources other than those he paid for because of an inability to find better sources is evidence of lack of notability. We need independent sources and if the subject himself can't provide them... Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS Chzz ► 18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have no academic/educator connection so fails WP:Prof. No other notability either. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Possibly even a speedy delete as both promotional and no plausible claim to notability. If evidence were need to demolish any claim of Marquis WW for purposes of notability, its this article. BTW, you don't even usually have to pay--I certainly didn't the 2 years they included me--their apparent purpose must be to get as much content as possible to make as many separate editions as they can. DGG (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting life and a notable life are not the same thing - Vartanza (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy as advert. Ouch. No plausible claim to notability whatsoever. Google Scholar, Books and News got nothing. A general Google search for "path of the serpent" +lipton found me his blog (confirming that the SPA is indeed the author, or at least using the same username). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (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.