Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mallory Millett Danaher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - Yomanganitalk 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mallory Millett Danaher, Mallory Millett, Mallory Jones (redirect)

Appears to be a very minor actor. IMDB profile is limited [1], not much in google either [2] & [3] & [4] NMChico24 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Strongly recommend that Mallory Millett article be added to the nomination - see my comments below Bwithh 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Done --NMChico24 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notability established by multiple roles in film, TV, Broadway, plus authored 2 books and has had multiple exhibitions as a photographer. Akradecki 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Um... you realize that one of the key functions of afd is actually checking the claims the article makes, rather than not ony believing whatever the article says to be of encyclopedic notability just because its written but also adding further claims of imagined notability not mentioned in the article (Broadway??)? Bwithh 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. She seems to be notable, sort of, but the article as it stands is little more than a list of Mallorycruft. I suggest this article would have a much better chance of surviving if those interested in Danaher's career simply turned it into a one- or two-paragraph stub. --Aaron 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Why would we need a stub about someone who is "sort of" notable? --NMChico24 23:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO, failure of WP:V for much of article, WP:AUTO/WP:VAIN/WP:SPAM issue with resume abuse of Wikipedia. Aarticle creator is a single purpose account with Danaher's resume pasted into the user talk page[5]. This account also created a resume spam article here:Mallory Millett. The article subject is a very minor actress who has had various bit parts - only some of which were notable enough for IMDB (e.g. "Girl No.1" in the movie Tootsie). Theatre career details contain no claims about notability and no verification. Claims that she wrote two books are based on nothing - zero hits for the two book titles with her name (trying both Millett and Danaher) on google and amazon[6][7] [8][9][10][11]. Claims about photography career unverifiable as notable. Zero hits for searches for mallory/millet/danaher + any of the galleries listed [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. (And I'm sorry but I have to say that the photos on the photo website linked in the article are quite nice but not believably of a professional gallery exhibition standard in terms of content or theme). I also ran a Factiva news and magazine database run - there were only a couple of hits. One hit was a LA Times profile about one of this Mallory's sisters - Kate Millet, a notable anti-psychiatry feminist author. The other was an insurance industry magazine obituary about Mallory's mother, who was one of the first female insurance agents (does not seem to be encyclopedically notable). In both articles, Mallory was only used as a secondary reference. Bwithh 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment For what its worth, she writes (and does photography) under the name of Mallory Jones, which is why you couldn't find any record of her works under the name of Millet or Danaher (one of them does show up at Amazon, which is why I added to the article. For what it's worth, I'm not a strong advocate of keeping it, I'm just an editor who likes to try to improve articles I come across while new page patrolling, rather than automatically deleting them. I'm a little bit bothered, though, by putting so much emphasis on Ghits...that's not even remotely a criteria for notability, although being a published author is. Akradecki 01:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
While I understand the wariness about the google test, I would also emphasize that being a "published author" is not sufficient grounds in itself for encyclopedic notability. Also a listing on Amazon or an ISBN does not guarantee that a book is published by a legit publisher or even if it exists. (Its not that hard to get an ISBN or an Amazon listing... its probably even easier than getting on IMDB.) Bwithh 16:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I checked out the Mallory Jones photo site. Sorry again but this is just not believable professional photographic art - the website is very amateurish and the photos, while nice, are all of themes like sunset, sunrise, flowers and animals (e.g. "Ducks" - a set which includes several birds which are, well... not ducks) and vacation snaps ("Spring Break '06", "Montana Trip 2005"). She labels one set of quite standard sunset photos "Armageddon" and that's about as edgy as it gets. As for the book on Amazon[21], this appears to be an obscure, short 1970 children's book about a black restaurant owner's struggle with racism[22] but with no indication of notability. I just don't see any possibly of an article with substantive encyclopedic notability here. Bwithh 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for Mallory Millett, weak delete for Mallory Millett Danaher. She fails WP:BIO and the Mallory Millett article is pointless. Not to mention the poor formatting. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 04:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete minor actress with no significant roles; articles seem to have been created as a lame spam/promotional attempt. Opabinia regalis 04:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh's research: these articles are promotional and the claims made in them are overblown. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 33 unique Ghits, and nothing special there. She's pretty overwhelmingly not notable from what's in the article. Ohconfucius 09:39, 12 October 2006 (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.