Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Martin (artist)


 * 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. Article has changed significantly since original nomination. Please feel free to renominate (with no minimum time period to be observed) if anyone believes it should still be deleted. Daniel (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Dick Martin (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no clear indication that he is actually notable. He illustrated the 40th book in the Oz series. I have to admit that I had no idea there were that many books, period. I have not read any, although my 5th grade teacher read "The Wizard of Oz" to us, but because I was assigned to go to the Special education resource room, I missed parts of the book. I missed parts of lots of books she read to us, it was in its own way quite frustrating. I knew there were other books, we mentioned it in my American Heritage class lab session at BYU, although the others lack the direct political analogies that make the first one more culturally impactful. To be fair most people for the last 80 plus years have known "The Wizard of Oz" more as a film than as a book, it is still a work with cultural cachet to this day (as seen by the "Flying Monkey" line in "The Avengers" paired with Steve Rogers responding "I get that", because it is one of the few such references that would have been known to a 20-something year old in the mid-1940s). Illustrators normally only become notable for picture books (for example Theodore Suess Guisel, although he was also the writer so this might be a poor example, but he remains the most famous example), but I suppose there are a few who illustrated books dominated by text who are notable who were not the writers, but it normally is in a truly impactful book or in several. Illustrating the 40th volume does not cut it. Nor does being the president of a fan club, or the editor of a fan oriented magazine. The other issue is this article has stood for over 15 years with no sources, it has had a notification of no sources for almost 12 years. This is one of the most flagrant violations of verrifiability rules I have ever seen. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. I get it, Wizard of Oz is a classic and it is super notable, but I think not everything is notable that is connected to it. I have seen so many Oz related articles here, and I'm not convinced if all of them are notable. We are not Ozpedia. Btw, I have only read the first book and I enjoyed it. (I haven't seen the film though.) I don't know if I would enjoy the sequels as well. I don't like it when there are too many sequels about anything. They just seem like a quick cash grab to me. But anyways, Dick Martin is not notable, as everything I have found are just about the book, with his name mentioned as the illustrator. The only site that is actually about him is the webpage of the Oz fanclub, which I wouldn't call a reliable source. So yeah, definitely not notable on his own. Maybe others find something else, but during a Google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts that the book he illustrated in notable either. This was the 40th book in the series, which was released about 70 years after the first one. Only the first 14 were by Baum.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about their notability as well. The books by Baum are notable, but I am not sure we need an article on every Oz book. That's why I said "we are not Ozpedia." We don't need an article on everything that is related to Oz. Even if every book is notable, I am still not sure about all of the characters (with the exception of the main characters) and all the related stuff. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What? "I am not sure we need an article on every Oz book"? There are many articles *I* personally don't need, but I'd never use that as a point in deletion discussions. It's not about what one or most of us thinks the encyclopedia needs--it's about what is notable and received coverage. Oz books by people other than Baum pass notability if they meet the criteria of WP:NBOOK. So what if one book is the 40th in the series and published 70 years after the first? To say otherwise is to ignore Wikipedia policy. It's that simple. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Okay, I got it. The books themselves are notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oz/ozsect3.html is an entry in the library of congress, which verifies some information listed in the article. I don't see anyone reviewing any of his work though.   D r e a m Focus  19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Kirkus Reviews: https://static.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/eloise-mcgraw/merry-go-round-in-oz/ (his work not reviewed, though). I don't think the Publishers Weekly website goes back that far, but I can look more into it later, plus SLJ and the rest of the usual suspects. There is more info with citations on Ozmapolitan of Oz article. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep just meets WP:AUTHOR #3. He's got other titles, but none for which I could find much coverage outside of the Oz fandom. I looked for, but did not find, an obit; that might have been helpful. I removed uncited information that wasn't backed up in external links from the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Google, though the bare minimum standard of a BEFORE check, is often insufficient for the task of establishing notability of writers and illustrators of the pre-ditigal era; you're going to need to look at paywalled sources to adequately investigate notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To the closer: some of the comments above are akin to WP:IDL and WP:NOEFFORT. If this is looking like a delete, please give me a head's up before deleting the page so I can copy information to one of his books and create a redirect. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * https://oz.fandom.com/wiki/Dick_Martin might be a good place for information about him.  D r e a m Focus  03:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the impressive work that has happened since nomination: the much-bemoaned lack of sources is no longer an issue, nor is the page filled with cruft. While the version that got AfD'd was definitely crap, we are now looking at a substantially different (and better) article. jp×g 10:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.