Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl F. Mallett

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus, but I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and cleaned up the obvious cruft, bringing some sanity to the article. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

[edit] Daryl_F._Mallett

Someone has added back all of the non-notable content which was deleted in the previous VFD round. This is more evidence that this page is the work of one author and is of little or no use to the Wikicommunity. Perhaps this non-notable entry belongs on a Wikipedia user page instead of an article.Tanstaafl 23:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. He's not in IMDB. Books around 2 million in Amazon sales rank. --Etacar11 02:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self promotion. JamesBurns 04:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• How can you say this in non-notable given the list of professional credits ? or is the argument that some/all of those are fake ? In which case, how, without the fakes being edited out, do we know what we're voting on ? Would this be a userfy situation ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how he's more notable than a thirtysomething lawyer or doctor. If he's really achieved anything significant, I can't make out what it is amidst all the detail. Delete CalJW 00:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I'm not sure if the whole page is accurate, but a number of the books checked out and are for sale on Amazon. Being the work of one author hardly seems proper criteria for deleting a page. — RJH 18:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme vanity—nothing more than vigorous self-promotion. A lot more is claimed in this article than is proven by the meager references provided. Some of it probably can't be verified at all, the verifiable parts would take hours of work to document appropriately and even if that was done, the result would still not be worth it because the subject isn't notable. To answer a question: It's easy to say that the subject is non-notable precisely because of the list of professional credits. Nothing in the article indicates that this individual is more interesting than the average professional writer. The excruciating, mind-numbing detail drives that home with force. If no single accomplishment is notable, having a hundred non-notable accomplishments doesn't add up to encyclopedic notability. The sea of redlinks in the article is alarming. Remove this article before he starts to create articles for all that other non-notable junk. Quale 21:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• So, your agument is along the lines of "when everybody's nobody then no-one's anybody" ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 18:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No, it's simply "Daryl F. Mallett has no encyclopedically notable accomplishments". No crime there, since I along with most of the rest of the world are in the same boat. The difference is that most of us aren't as vain. Quale 22:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He's real, a very minor professional in the SF/fantasy field. For what little it's worth, I actually recognized the name. However, somebody ought to take a blowtorch to that list of credits and related self-promotion; I've never seen anybody take public credit as the "editor" of so much stuff they copyedited/proofread before. Borgo Press was a real and substantial publishing operation, even though most of its output was mindnumbingly bibliographical and sold mostly to libraries, and his status there is apparently legitimate. I wouldn't take the time to write him up myself, and only Daryl would shed any tears if this article was reduced to less than a dozen lines. Monicasdude 01:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.