Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gitin


 * 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. After being open for 23 days this AfD has only summoned one !vote to delete so there doesn't appear to be a burning desire on the part of the community to delete the article in question. has scared up a number of sources and appears to be eager to improve the article.  A  Train ''talk 09:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

David Gitin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be mostly copyvios, (See [| Copyvio report]) AntiCompositeNumber (on vacation) (Leave a message) 01:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete If he was notable, the copyvios could be cleaned up. A search for sources shows that he is a minor, non-notable poet. I will happily change my recommendation if significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is discovered. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I put together the page, and yes, I did use other source material which was all referenced to the source. If that is a violation of copyright - I can easily rewrite the information. David Gitin is not a minor, non-notable poet. How do you make a determination like that? Who are you to put yourself in that position to make such a statement? This seems to me to go against the whole principal of Wikipedia - for one person to determine what history should be and who should be valued - particularly in the arts. As you can see from the publications list he had many books published, by multiple publishers. He is widely respected in the poetry world. See this interview with Michael McClure in the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anis-shivani/exclusive-beat-poet-mcclure_b_823425.html "McClure: In spite of the smothering effort by many in the academy and by the ignorant, poetry is alive. It is often hard to find, because it is dodging the samsaric breakers and one-dimensional undertow, or it is in plain hearing in the art of Bob Dylan, or kept a little out of the way from readers in the dimness of misinformation about poetry. There is no finer poet than Diane di Prima who, like Joanne Kyger, does not broadcast or flaunt her rich creation. Amiri Baraka seems to be in the midst of a personal renaissance of commitment and clarity. Jerome Rothenberg continues bringing me news of poetry that I never imagined. Clayton Eshleman is exploring the Paleolithic galleries of his person. Philip Lamantia’s almost lost poetry will be published soon, in a Collected Poems by a major university press. Poets of modesty, brevity, and intense genius like David Gitin can be found in small press editions. Online sites contain shimmering ongoing streams of poetry by younger people who do not press for public recognition—they have to be sought out."

An article about David Gitin which may explain his lack of notoriety: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/after-a-long-hiatus-local-poet-david-gitin-publishes-a/article_be620444-0da2-5cc7-a40e-5fa61ff6c155.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueWind13 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC) BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . When you point out that Michael McClure devoted a single sentence to Gitin, that is not a good argument for notability, since we require significant coverage and one sentence does not meet that threshold. A source that, as you describe, explains his "lack of notoriety" is also not a positive contribution to the debate, since our job here is to delete articles about topics that lack notability. When you ask "Who are you to put yourself in that position to make such a statement?", my response is that I am an editor with lots of experience at Articles for Deletion. An editor who has written the biographies of many notable artists and photographers, and saved many others from deletion. An editor who is always willing to switch to "Keep" when solid evidence of notability is presented. So, please bring forth better evidence. Thank you very much. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

David Gitin's papers are in the archives at: Stanford: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/ft7v19n8w4/entire_text/ Worcester Polytechnic: https://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Library/MS34_David_and_Maria_Gitin_Collection.pdf Cornell: http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/RMM04679.html UC San Diego: http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/findingaids/mss0075.html Northwestern University: http://findingaids.library.northwestern.edu/catalog/inu-ead-spec-archon-112 BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328- I could give you many more quotes from Michael McClure. I pointed out that one sentence because it was recent and because it was available online at Huffington Post. If you want more sentences, I can provide them. But that seems besides the point. You can also read quotes from 'notable' authors about his work on the back of David Gitin's books. (Or both - blurbs on the back and Michael McClure: Michael McClure's blurb on a back cover: "Gitin is a master of subtle rhythms that ear and eye blend on the field of the senses. Meadowlarks and irises move in spirit-dances and ellipses through Legwork. Objectivist poets and Issa might converse in this world." And quotes from 'notable' writers & artists in the Gitin correspondences in the archives. And quotes on blogs. But none of those are the kinds of sources which Wikipedia seems inclined towards. David Gitin is what is known as a "poet's poet" and did not achieve huge commercial success, although he had a number of books published by reputable smaller publishers like Ithaca House- and in the days when authors did not have to pay publishers to publish their books. Commercial success, or widespread fame, in the poetry world is not a measure of the value of one's work or worthiness. So, please, tell me more about yourself and your qualifications to moderate who is, and who is not, notable in the poetry world? Just because you've edited many Wikipedia pages does not make you an expert. Do you have an advanced degree in literature? How cognizant are you of the modern poetry world? Have you read much modern poetry? Have you, for instance, at the very least, taken the Coursera MOOC ModPo? (If not, and you have an interest in modern poetry, I highly recommend it!) I have been involved with the poetry world since 1973 when I worked at as an assistant poetry editor at The Antioch Review, and then at The Poetry Center at San Francisco State College. And, yes, as I mentioned to Marchjuly I am connected to Blue Wind Press which was one of David Gitin's publishers - as well as publishing three books by William S Burroughs, and poetry collections of Ted Berrigan, Anselm Hollo, Merrill Gilfillan, Michael Lally, Lorenzo Thomas, and Jack Marshall among others - and all of whom already have Wikipedia bio pages. Here is Ron Silliman's post on first meeting & publishing David Gitin "...Gitin as always is at once the most precise writer imaginable & a very restless imagination, a great combination. These poems push-pull on the reader in ways that are as unpredictable as writing as they are as real-world experiences...." David Gitin was also friends with some of the great poets of the day, particularly the Objectivist poets and his letters, as you can see from the references, have been archived in major library collections. I can't imagine it would not be useful to a scholar to know more about the person whom the author one was studying was writing either to or from. BlueWind13 (talk)

BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Article is pretty bad, and yes, appears to be very notable--yet I cannot bring myself to vote delete. Poets have it hard already. This one has almost a dozen collections published, his papers are being held in two places--I'm going to go with weak keep. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies if you think the article is 'pretty bad' I have no objections to you improving it. Isn't that the whole concept of a crowdsourced database? If someone is 'very notable' what would be the justification to not include them in Wikipedia? Wouldn't it make more sense to improve the article instead? As for poets having it 'pretty bad' I'm in complete agreement - and it's one of the reasons it's been difficult to find online resources to link to, or to provide more information. Poets get little public coverage - which is why Wikipedia can provide a true resource. How would you suggest I, or others, go about improving the article?


 * 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.