Talk:Daryl F. Mallett

Untitled

New VFD initiated June 24, 2005. 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 material belongs on a Wikipedia user page instead of an article. Tanstaafl 22:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from VfD:

This page is completely non-notable. There is no reason why this subject should have a page longer than Ronald Reagan's. If this page is to be kept, it should be one short paragraph. Tanstaafl 00:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the notability, but it's a good example of millions of red links. But so what if it's longer than Reagan's; excessive length and completeness is hardly grounds for deletion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Its irrelevant in the first place, but this article is nearly half the size of former-president Ronald Reagan (word count of 3800+ vs. 6200+). [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 23:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable hard-laboring guy, one of those who make America as it is. Mikkalai 01:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Ick. The whole article is red. The fellow is not notable. Authors aren't that rare, and freelancers are pretty common. His achievements are fine for some dude, but only rises to the level of some dude. Geogre 05:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ew! Gross! The content demonstrates its own lack of notability in excruciating, fingernail-dragging detail. Wyss 01:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Deplore the ugly comments.Dr Zen 01:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep: there is a lot of trivia about a person probably not notable enough to merit treatment at this length; on a quick read, it looks like that there are half a dozen things in the article which, taken together, do add up to notability. I suspect that someone could rewrite the lead to mention the highlights, and he would pass a notability test. That said, it's hard to imagine that anyone but his mother or his agent would want to read this comprehensive a list of the works of a relatively minor writer and editor. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• My comments weren't directed at the person, but at the article. There seems to be a consensus here that in any event, it is far too long. I agree it might seem more notable if it were edited way down (although my vote to delete stands). Wyss 10:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The length of an article doesn't make a person any more or less notable. That is absurd. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This looks to me like some guy just trying to make it in the world. I wish him well, but he does not deserve an article in an encyclopedia. Indrian 18:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially the author of 6 very obscure books, the highest amazon sales rank being 3,016,293. Oh and he was an extra in a few films.. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 20:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oh my, what a ridiculous article. Weak keep, needs extensive cleanup, I agree with Jmabel. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 20:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Weak keep. There are several things nested in this article of red links which establish notability. The article does require some cleaning, yes, but that is absolutely no reason for destruction of the general content. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 19:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. Resume-cruft. I chopped the most useless bits off, in case the inclusionists manage to save this pointless article. Even the parts which seem notable are really non-notable when you look at them. He wrote an episode of Star Trek? No, he and four other people sold a story idea. He's an actor? No, he was an extra on one episode and will appear in a yet to be made fan film. I admire the guy's persistence and just looking at the list of accomplishments leaves me exhausted, but they are all minor, sorry. Gamaliel 23:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've trimmed back some of the -- I hate to say it -- resumecruft as well, leaving behind what I feel are honest noteworthy contributions. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 00:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Upon further inspection of this article's edit history, it appears that the unnecessarily explicit and non-noteworthy details have been repeatedly cropped out in the past. Closer attention needs to be paid to edits by User:Wolfboy21 who continues to add them back in. [1] —[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 00:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. While not super notable, not obscure either, still garners 2200+ google hits. --MPerel 19:32, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 22:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Keep

Indrian says doesn't deserve encyclopedia entry, but this guy is in three other encyclopedias besides Wikipedia, one of the Star Trek encyclopedias, The Science Fiction Encyclopedia by John Clute & Peter Nicholls and has an entry in Contemporary Authors. Keep on keepin' on dude!

Keep

Mallett may not be a Stephen King or Arthur C. Clarke yet, but he has a small, rabid group of fans that are excited about his work (co-wrote the storyline for a Star Trek: The Next Generation two-part episode, short story in one of the Star Wars anthologies) and he's going to be famous someday. They obviously love his work and support him. It sounds like a few jealous losers that don't want him to have an entry. If Ronald Reagan's article is so short, maybe they should go add to it! Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to have as much information as possible on a subject? Geez. I agree with the above post. Keep up the good work, Mallett! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davrob45 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Daryl F. Mallett

What is TANSTAAFL's problem with this guy? He seems to come here quite a bit and snip away at the article, posts VFDs and generally seems to dislike this author. I think it's great that there's people out there like this author who work hard and want to be remembered. Hope I can do something like that someday.