Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Martin (publisher)

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 no consensus. Clearly no consensus for any one operation; most likely going to either be kept outright or merged/redirected. slakr^\ talk / 02:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Martin (publisher)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ WP:Notability Rameshnta909 (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2]. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources. I guess the question is are they notable independent of Charles Bukowski? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Rameshnta909 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe redirect to Charles Bukowski? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find any significant coverage of Martin that doesn't refer to him as Bukowski's publisher, so that would seem to be the best solution. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah on a second thought, maybe redirect is the sensible option here...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can redirect simply as his publisher, but if there is more to be said, we need better sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve This article does not do Martin justice in terms of his importance in late 20th century literary history. He didn't merely publish Bukowski, his intervention made Bukowski's literary career possible. He was also frequently referenced in Bukowski's writing, so might be notable in that respect. But beyond Bukowski, Black Sparrow went on to publish many other notable writers under Martin, which also makes him a notable figure. There are legitimate sources one could draw on with some digging. A counter-argument to my keep argument would be to redirect to the
Black Sparrow Books entry. At any rate, I would strongly argue against redirecting to the Charles Bukowski entry, because his career as a publisher went beyond his work with Bukowski. (If this entry survives, I may try to pitch in on improving it when I have a moment). Missjastersgarden (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you point to any reliable sources that cover Martin outside of his publishing of Bukowski? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there will ever be an article about him that doesn't mention Bukowski, but sure, here's one from the LA Times that goes into his publishing of Bowles and Fante and the sale of Black Sparrow to Harper Collins: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/aug/21/news/lv-media21 Missjastersgarden (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any vested interest in this, but the more I dig, the more I don't think there's any question Martin is sufficiently notable on his own. However, if the benchmark is finding material that does not mention Bukowski at all, there's not going to be much. I would argue that's the wrong benchmark, because the two share a formative experience in the founding of Black Sparrow. Here's an article from Gizmodo that talks about one of Martin's contributions to American publishing in the form of iconic book designs (which were done with his wife, Barbara). The article talks about Bukowski, but there is more going on here than just those books. http://gizmodo.com/the-iconic-legendary-designs-of-black-sparrow-press-bo-1643979525. Here's another piece from around the sale of Black Sparrow that details Martin's impact beyond Bukowski (and there are a few others along these lines): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Black-Sparrow-Press-shuts-its-doors-Indie-2817478.php Missjastersgarden (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) I agree that the LA Times article you linked in your penultimate edit shows that Martin's notability goes beyond Bukowski, but it seems that he and the Black Sparrow Press are pretty well inseparable, so I don't think that we need two separate articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes merging to Black Sparrow Press is an even better idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the growing notion that a merger with Black Sparrow might be an OK outcome, I decided to
be cautious and see what people think before going too far down this rabbit hole.Missjastersgarden (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is definitely inappropriate here. Martin was an important figure in independent publishing. But as of now I don't see much of a need for a separate article, since his notability arises from his work at Black Sparrow, so I'm OK with a merge and redirect to
Black Sparrow Books, which allows us to flesh out the Black Sparrow article a bit and provide more info about its founder in that article. The merge is without prejudice to reviving the separate article if sufficient evidence of separate notability turns up hereafter. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

merge and redirect to
Black Sparrow Books Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. While the article needs considerable copyediting (ironically), it's clear that with
the guidelines. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, there are definite copyediting improvements that could be made. Sorry, I just sort of trashed out my best stab at what's there, because what was up before was really insufficient. As far as additional sources, here's a PDF of a Martin-centric 1972 LA Times article that was posted on a Bukowski forum that could also be used to improve the entry. It is interesting to note that the history of Black Sparrow that is given in this article differs somewhat from the version that has become codified in common discourse (i.e., the founding of Black Sparrow seems less Bukowski-focused in the 1972 telling than has been later depicted). http://bukowskiforum.com/threads/1972-la-times-article-about-martin-black-sparrow.11697/ Missjastersgarden (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article can definitely be improved and brought up to standards. As others have also pointed out, there are many sources and he passes the
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep' and expand -- seems a better idea than to redirect. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 21 December 2016 (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.