Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lipp


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Doug Lipp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly promotional article for borderline notable writer. His best known book, Danger and opportunity  is held in 125 libraries according to WorldCat. Many other things are asserted also, but I think none of them amount to notability. None of the positions are significant; almost all of the sources are promotional. The article was written mostly or entirely by a known paid sock-puppetting editor, and I think the combination of borderline notability and promotionalism makes a case for deletion.

The inclusion in the lede and infobox of claimed notability in a large number of occupations including the rather ill-defined one of professional speaker is in my experience an almost sure sign of promotionalism, especially when accompanied by author and consultant. None of this belongs in an encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. He seems to significantly figure in a few of the reliable sources offered.  Couldn't the article just be rewritten?  I skimmed through a dozen of the sources, and quite a few of them struck me as promotional nonsense, but there were a few that seemed legitimate, such as the NYT piece on the Jersey Shore.  I'm not necessarily volunteering to do it, but it seems surmountable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews, and WP:GNG significant coverage over a long period of time in reliable sources.
 * Book reviews:
 * Lauren Simonds. "Deliver a World-Class Customer Experience", Time magazine, May 15, 2013
 * Claudia Buck. "How Disney gets its ‘hi-ho’ enthusiasm from workers", The News Tribune, April 7, 2013
 * Ray Bert. "Disney U: How Disney University Develops the World's Most Engaged, Loyal, and Customer-Centric Employees." Civil Engineering (08857024). May2013, Vol. 83 Issue 5, p80-80.
 * Terri Schlichenmyer. "'Disney U' offers more stories than advice", Arizona Daily Sun, April 28, 2013
 * "‘Disney U’ provides lessons for any business", The Sacramento Bee, April 15, 2013
 * Greg Hack. "The Bookshelf", Kansas City Star, February 3, 2004 (book review, The Changing Face of Today's Customer)
 * Speaking reviews and other significant coverage:
 * Rhonda Bodfield. "Ex-Disney exec warns of trap in down times", Arizona Daily Star, September 10, 2011
 * John Curran. "Former Disney Exec Gives Shore Workers Friendly Advice", Associated Press, June 14, 2005
 * Cathleen Ferraro. "Rare care - Expert says it's easy to improve service", The Sacramento Bee, December 22, 2001
 * Michael Heenan. "Spanning a Wide Cultural Gap", Sunday Union, December 2, 1990.
 * Michael Strob. "Bridging the Culture Gap", Sacramento Bee, February 20, 1998.
 * "Smoothing Out Cultural Misunderstandings", Training Magazine, October 1992.
 * Tim O'Brien. "Customer Service Killers: Know Them and Avoid Them", Amusement Business, December 4-10, 1995


 * Otherwise, the article is indeed a classic WP:PUFF by a paid editor full of junk sourcing. That shouldn't prejudice to deletion if there are enough reliable sources to build an article, as NinjaRobotPirate says. Funny how the paid sock missed most of the best sources many of which are available through the subject's own website (pdf's of newspaper scans). The whole article needs to be WP:TNT from ground up using reliable secondary sources such as these. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with most of what DGG says in the nom, but GC has unearthed some pretty compelling evidence of notability, which brings me to the conclusion that this article is indeed salvageable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. (sigh) Despite the promotional character of this article, and the fact that it may be a paid promotional article, the fact is that the subject of this article does appear to meet the notability guidelines. If a convincing argument can be made to the contrary I'm certainly open to it. Coretheapple (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2013 (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.