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. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Dickerson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/George Dickerson

Schneider cleanup NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable washed up actor. NorthStory (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This AfD was started by a sock puppet involved in the recent Dan Schneider edit issue, with this AfD being one of only six edits this editor has made. Please take this into consideration with this AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. George Dickerson is a poet and actor of international recognition. He's been published in The Best American Short Stories, acted in David Lynch's 1986 film Blue Velvet, and has numerous other credentials which qualify under WP:BIO guidelines. Yes, the article needs more references from additional sources. But just because there were sock puppets around the recent Schneider issue--sock puppets both for and against Schneider, I should point out, with this AfD likely started by one of the sock puppets--that has nothing to do with the fact that this subject is notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the failure to meet WP:BIO guidelines but I see no need to make personal attacks, as the nominator has done. RFerreira (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article makes several strong claims to notability. He was indeed a literarature critic for Time, and he had an important role in the film Blue Velvet. He also seems to have a profile in Contemporary Theater, Film, and Television that could confirm other details, although we can only get a snippet of it from Google Books. Zagalejo^^^ 20:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Well known actor, and this nomination in bad faith by a band of rogue editors with a pathological hatred for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Schneider_(writer). They have previously tried to delete this page, an interview subject of the former page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rowlands

This group of rogues uses many sockpuppets, and may be just one person. Here are a tally of their accounts as known:

As one can see, most of the accounts are single purpose accounts bent on vandalism. They seem to be led by a rogue admin called:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG

He banned my last account and claimed I was SPAing, even as he and his alter-egos deleted and vandalized many pages, even against the warnings of other editors and admins. A disgrace to Wikipedia. Cop 667 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The movie career seems sufficient. I do however think it essential to have an additional source besides the interview. DGG (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep basically because of the personal attacks going back and forth. Keep the article but, find reliable 3rd party sources for the information and include them in the article. If the only source is going to be the interview than better to delete it now and save us all the agro of the tit for tat accusations. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other reliable sources, from Contemporary Theatre, Film, and Television and the NY Times, have now been added to this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jasynnash2 and DGG are correct. Ignoring the drama involved, this article has passed the bar for notability. Clean it up and provide sources. Not a deletion candidate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.