Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivienne Dick

 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

Vivienne Dick

 * Non-notable, vanity. Google only returns 519 hits. -- Natalinasmpf 04:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - And another thing...don't the rules say to use the what links here tool and if a page is linked from another than it's ok? Quit wasting time deleting everything and share some information.  matthewjhale
 * No, the rules don't say any such thing, since the same person who created the nonsense article could have also added the links in other pages. If her movies are listed on Imdb and she isn't, that makes me suspicious. Delete' until further proof is given.  RickK 05:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. She was included in the 1983 Whitney Biennial. Pburka 04:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete : I took the name as well as the name of every film in the article, and went through IMDB. I couldn't find either her name, or her attributed in any of the films that were actually available on IMDB.  Also did a cursory glance through Google and couldn't find any sign of notability.  Wikibofh 04:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article now definitely establishes notability, and Wikipedia is not paper.  Accordingly, I am changing my vote.  (Oh, and good job DS1953!) Wikibofh 15:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * At least three of her movies are on IMDB:  . She's not credited, but not surprisingly since IMDB's entries seem to be rather incomplete for them. One of them even won an award. Also, she was included in the 1983 Whitney Biennial, which is a major honour for a young artist. Pburka 05:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did find several on IMDB, but no mention of her. Lydia Lunch seemed far more notable (mentioned in the three you note I believe.  Also, a "young" artist would not be directing a film released in 1979  :) Wikibofh 05:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Speaking of which, Lydia Lunch's self reported bibliography shows Vivienne as the director of several movies.  I haven't decided if that changes my vote or not.  Wikibofh 05:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: An artist directing a film in 1979 could very well be young in 1983 ;). Pburka 13:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * One of her movies is also listed on the All Movie Guide at allmovie.com. --Matthewjhale
 * Strong Keep. Village Voice film critic J. Hoberman has called Dick the "quintessential No Wave filmmaker." See my expansion of the article. Google and IMDB are often good tests, but I think in this case they have proved their own limitations. DS1953 06:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Some notability. Agree with DS1953. JamesBurns 07:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete speedily. We let her in we have to let in every film school teacher who for two months of a decade had a public forum for thier documentaries in the 80's. It is clear.--0001 14:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per DS1953. Well done.  -- Un focused 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is one of those areas that I always talk about, where Google will let you down. Even the most ephemeral porn star will have 5x the links on Google, but she will also have .001 of the actual notability.  Avant-garde artists are very poorly served by Google.  The article needs expansion, but the subject is worthy. Geogre 17:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well done DS1953 on article on notable avant-garde filmmaker. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and ponder the realization that a person named Vivienne Dick isn't an ephemeral porn star. Dystopos 21:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear in the Grove Art database so I'm not sure if she's an artist of any real note. Does not appear in any biographical database I searched. Gamaliel 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats why Wikipedia is better! --Matthewjhale
 * An astonishingly low standard for inclusion does not make this project better. Gamaliel 22:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, miseryguts. As Wikipedia is effectively infinite in size I've never seen the point in deleting anything useful and well-researched. We are now a primary source of information on this obscure figure. Hurrah! --KharBevNor 01:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish we could get everyone to share that opinion KharBevNor. I think any factual information on any topic should be accepted.  While at the momment I'm willing to follow the current guidelines, I have yet to see an argument I consider valid as to why something should not be allowed in Wikipedia.  --Matthewjhale


 * Keep -Vivienne Dick is well worth keeping. Her films have been widely screened in alternative art spaces and 'underground' cinemas and she is well known in these circles and avant garde music circles as well. I have seen plenty of mistakes on IMDB; it's not always reliable and are resistant to make corrections, so I wouldn't judge her by that criterion. TheEmissary 22 June 2005
 * Keep, notable. &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:14, 23 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.