Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Hicks

Randall Hicks

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

unashamed promotional vanity article from COI/SPA. numerous primary sources. no real RSes. some coverage in an esoteric publication (perhaps user contributed?) but run of the mill legal text - reports on cases and not what can be considered reliable, independent and significant. Rayman60 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a wikipedia experienced user like the person who made the comments above and I don't even know what all those acronyms mean (COI/SPA et cetera). So I can only respond as a normal person who occasionally uses Wikiepedia and feel somewhat bullied in the objection to my article. I work in the adoption field so am very aware of Randall Hicks and how big he is in the field. First about his worthiness as a lawyer. One of the criticisms above is "reports on cases and not what can be considered erliable, independent and significant." Actually, the citations I provided (law.justia.com) is the leading online reporter of published legal cases for the public to use. It is the first source almost always on Google. And if a person takes the time to go to each linked case, you will see Randall Hicks listed at the very start as the attorney of record for the prevailing party. And simply the fact they are "published" cases, shows their significance as setting precedent. Less than one percent of all cases are selected for publication. I added a New York Times link to an article on adoption quoting Randall Hicks and mentioning his book. Also, he is one of the bestselling adoption authors of "how to" adoption books. I added reviews of them from the two largest review entities in the world: Publishers Weekly and Library Journal. Sorry if I should have done this before, but I didn't think it was necessary. I'm likely not the best Wikipedia writer, but I did my best. So I don't think anyone can argue Randall Hicks is one of the leading attorneys in his field. As a writer, he not only has many books on the subject of adoption in both fiction and non-fiction, they are successful, well-reviewed and award-winning. The person proposing deletion seems to riducule the awards, which I don't understand. Every award Randall Hicks won, or was a finalist for, has a long-standing article page of its own on Wikipedia. For those in the mystery fiction world, the Anthony, Barry, Macavity and Gumshoe are significant awards. I also added a link for a book review for his most recent book on Step Parenting, which was not just reviewed by Library Journal, but gave it a rare "starred" review. The criticism above also seems to indicate links are only to Randall Hicks. I don't understand this criticism. Included in the sources were major print or web pubications. I did cite his own website, as it was hard to get personal information otherwise, but in looking at other author Wikipedia pages, they all seemed to do that, so I followed that template so to speak. I can take that out I guess. I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to make this response. Thanks for your assistance in getting the article right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the above statement comes from the creator of the article whose only contribution has been on this article (other than putting Randall's name in an adoption related article about 5 years ago) Rayman60 (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC

Well, I'm responding again to you Rayman60, trying to do my best here, but feeling even more attacked, like I'm not one of the popular kids of Wikipedia, just someone wanting to add people and facts who are significant and of interest. I didn't plan to spend so much time on this, but now you have me feeling defensive and I feel like I have to improve the artice or "be rejected" which is hurtful. First off, there was something about me having a tie to the article person (Randall Hicks). If that matters, my only connection is I work in the adoption field, and he is pretty famous in that area. I saw him speak at a conference and had his sign one of his books. That does not make me biased, just interesed in my field, and by extension, him. Your second comment does not address the points I made. There in nothing "unabashedly vain" or whatever you said. He is a well known attorney and I cited his cases. He is a popular adoption author and I cited his books. He was an actor and I cited his roles. The sources are the New York Times, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, San Diego Union Tribune, IMDb and the leading legal case reporter cite, law.justica. Yet you say they are not valid. I did make some changes. I had only cited RandallHicks.com for his film roles, but I changed it to the official cite of IMDb, which also turned up another role I didn't have, and I deleted one they did not have. Lastly, about your comment on the fact I've contributed little, I think I did several additions in adoption subjects years ago, but really can't recall. Not that I see that as relevant as I'm trying to contribute now. Thanks.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Rayman60, I think I have made the final edit which I hope meets your satisfaction. I added a legal citation. I am confused, however, why you initially found fault with the article, and why you have not withdrawn your proposal for deletion. I'm not sure how the process works. It's funny in that before I wrote this article, my first, I checked three other authors I like a lot and was going to write an article for one or more of them, thinking they were significant enough for a page, but not so well known that maybe they didn't have one yet. It turns out they all did. But here's why I even mention it. The three authors I thought I'd write about were: David Rosenfelt, Tim Dorsey and Barbara Seranella. And as far as references/sources go for all three of them, they all have either one, or no, references, other than their own website of similar entity. Yet you find fault with mine with not just many, but major sources, and actually criticize them. I can understand rejecting articles if someone is trying to "look big" when they have no widespread appeal, like someone's garage band or something. But I chose someone who is one of the most significant attorneys in his field with likely the most books on the subject. Separate from that is his success as an author, and evidently an actor too with his imdb listings. I will try to message you directly about why you feel this is someone's vanity piece as there is not a single complimentary adjective or anything like that - just facts about cases, books, and roles, and some basic personal info that is why I personally even look people up. Anyway, since I'm not a knowlegable Wikipedia user, I may fail at trying to message you directly, and if I do and you see this instead, I hope you will feel you can stop your sought-after deletion. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only potential vehicle for notability for subject is his authorship. If the page is to survive, it would have to be recast featuring that aspect and moving all the adoption lawyering to a small byline. The books look marginal, too. How-to guides are not going to be good enough, so if that's all they are, the page has to go. sirlanz 22:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sirlanz. Thanks for something constructive. I'm learning as I go and looked at it as a school research project: the more info the better. But that appears to not be what is wanted. I looked up other lawyers who were known in other fields, and tried to combine that with authors, as Randall Hicks is both. I will not go to the article and remove the legal information. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.27.12 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nothing against Randall, but this article does not establish notability for the subject, either as a lawyer or author. 1292simon (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to the Talk page. Gelo962 has clearly done their best to improve the page in a clearly good faith manner (all credit there) but subject simply falls well short. sirlanz 04:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to argue for my article. Now there are comments Hicks is not notable in his field, which is the threshold for the article being accepted. But previously I put the many sources of his fame in his field, such as being an expert guest on CBS This Morning, and national TV shows that are no longer on the air, like John & Leeza from Hollywood, The Home and Family Show, and Mike & Maty. These national shows reach a lot more than obscure publications. He hosted a PBS series, Adoption Forum. These are cited on imdb.com and in the San Diego Union Tribune Article. Other sources additionally cite the Today Show and Sally Jessy Raphael, but I got those from author bios, not independent cites like for the other shows. I cited his adoption case that went to the United States Supreme Court. This is clearly a very notable person. But I was told these details were "promotional" so I took it all out! So I just left in the citations to his books (reviews by unquestionable book review entities, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, San Diego Union Tribue, January Magazine), a feature article in San Diego Union Tribune, a quotation in the New York Times with reference to his book, Adopting in America, and many mystery journals. His book awards or nominations are all by entities that are recognized by Wikipedia so clearly significant. Does someone who is not a respected expert/author in their field a guest on half a dozen national TV talk shows, have six or seven books out, and received at least one major mystery award and named a finalist for several others? Wikipedia should always be expanding to include new notable people, not act like a club keeping people out. Just my opinion. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A skilled man who has clearly made his mark in his field. An expert in the field of adoption who has written a book on the subject. It seems he well meets the notability standards. Longevitydude (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]