Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hickins


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 01:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Michael Hickins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

On the surface, this looks like a passable biographical article. But the sourcing is atrocious - either dead links or inappropriate resources - and the subject's literary output appears to be mostly self-published and undistinguished. The writing tries to give the subject a sense of notability via his educational and professional associations, but I don't see this coming close to WP:GNG or WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete A non-notable writer with a couple of self-published books. Being a Wall Street Journal does not automatically make you notable. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've culled all of the unsourced, promotional prose from the article. I figure we can re-add it as we find sourcing. Right now the biggie is to find enough to show notability. I'm finding a few things, although one of them (namely the Seattle PI source) is a little dodgy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone asks, I would say that this source would likely be unusable since it's so brief. This one gives off the hope of more sources, since he's cited in an academic-type book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards a weak keep, as I'm finding coverage for his first book/collection and I can see where it is used in at least one college's curriculum. I'll see if I can find more, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I wish I had more sources than this, as the majority of these sources are trade reviews. I'm sort of leery about the Seattle PI review, as it came from BlogCritics.org, but the site does have an editorial board that reportedly approves everything before it is sent out to various different locations so I'll still count it as usable. There's just enough here to assert a weak notability, although it will likely need watching to ensure it isn't reverted to a promotional state. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The book that was reviewed is self-published through iUniverse, a vanity press. Wefihe (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing to remember is that being self-published or vanity published does not automatically mean non-notable. Being self-published just means that it's far less likely that the work in question will receive any coverage, but it's not an automatic "no, not notable" on that basis alone. It all boils down to whether or not the person has received coverage. This guy is on the borderline, but we shouldn't penalize him just because he went the self-publishing route. I know we have a lot of people coming on here to make their own articles about their self-published works, but that doesn't mean that every self-published author automatically fails notability guidelines just because they self-publish. That's kind of a dangerous mindset to have, if I can be so bold as to say that. We should judge notability based on sources, not whether or not they're published through a "real" publisher. I mean, look at Hugh Howey. He's a self-published author whose works gained quite a bit of coverage before Simon & Schuster decided to pick them up. Then there's books such as Fifty Shades of Grey and Amy Fisher's "If I Knew Then" book, both of which were highly successful in self-published/vanity format way before they were picked up by other publishers. It's just not a good mindset to automatically view a book/author as non-notable just because they self-published as opposed to going through a mainstream publisher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Fifty Shades of Grey and If I Knew Then wound up being republished by professional publishing companies. This writer's work, however, was not. Also, I cannot find any interviews with the writer connected to his works. The fact remains that the writer's literary career is almost entirely involved in vanity press output. And a BlogCritics.org review is hardly helpful - from my understanding, they review everything that is sent to them. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, notability is not temporary. His book received coverage and even if the book is never picked up again and all of the existent copies are destroyed, if the book/author is considered to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:NAUTHOR, that notability will remain until the guidelines are changed and made more exclusive/strict. I'm not super gung ho about keeping this article, but I don't like the idea of arguing deletion because he's self-published and his first book is currently out of print. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Mr Hickens has no notability in his own right. His "Michael Missing" book, which is the only work of his that was published by a real publisher, went out of print and Mr Hickens began self-publishing it in 2000. I don't think vanity press writers qualify for articles. Wefihe (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

*Keep, It's surprising that this has been nominated for deletion. Possibly a notability tag (If anything). Revisit this in say 6 - 12 months to see if output has continuity. I see he's authored nine or more books and is an editor for Wall St Journal. He's had a good output. (Joecreation (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Comment, the article does need good amount of work to make it acceptable. (Joecreation (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Comment Nearly all of his books are released by a vanity press service. And his work as an editor is equally undistinguished. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a self/vanity-published author does NOT mean that someone is automatically non-notable. SP books can still gain coverage and become notable. It's not exactly a common occurrence, but being self-published does not automatically mean non-notable. If you want to argue that he is non-notable, you need to argue that he's non-notable based on a lack of coverage. (IE, "delete because his self-published books have received no coverage in reliable sources or not enough to merit an article".) Arguing for deletion based on the fact that he is predominantly self-published is a very weak argument and probably should be listed at WP:NOT as an argument not to make at AfD. Many self-published authors are non-notable, but there are exceptions and we should not automatically make arguments that boil down to "delete because self-published". In some AfDs you can argue that they're a typical non-notable author, but please do not make the argument that he should be deleted because he is self-published. Specifying why his SPBs are non-notable (ie, not enough or no sources) will save a lot of time and keep people from trying to get AfD consensuses overturned at WP:DR on the basis that there was a bias against/for self-published authors. I can't stress this enough because there have been cases where Wikipedia has been specifically accused of being biased against anyone who self-publishes and isn't a mainstream published author. It's not guaranteed that this will end up being one of those times where someone accuses us of being biased, but it's better to be careful and not fan the flames by giving them fuel to back up their accusations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone whose literary output is the product of a vanity press service is not notable, either by Wikipedia standards or literary standards. It is not a question of bias, but a question of logic. None of Mr. Hickins's self-published books have made any impact on contemporary American literature, nor is Mr. Hickins the subject of any substantial independent media coverage because of his fiction. I agree that there are exceptions to notable self-published writers, but a serial vanity press customer like Mr. Hickins is obviously not one of these exceptions. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Being self-published is not an automatic non-notable status. It just means that they're highly likely to be non-notable, but it's not a guarantee. All I'm really trying to get across is that we shouldn't automatically say that someone is non-notable because they self-publish (vanity or otherwise) because there's more to proving notability than whether or not someone publishes through CreateSpace or Simon & Schuster. Someone can publish through one of the Big Four, yet still utterly fail notability guidelines. The problem with saying that being self-published means non-notable is that we're also implying that being published through a big publishing company will give that notability. It all boils down to coverage in reliable sources and that's how we should phrase things in a deletion discussion. Being self-published makes it unlikely that someone will gain sources, is all. I'd just prefer that if you're arguing for deletion, that you say that he hasn't received enough coverage in reliable sources rather than "he's self-published, which means he's non-notable". You could say that "Barton is like your typical self-published author in that he lacks the coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:NAUTHOR", but we shouldn't go about saying "Barton is self-published, delete". Whether or not you mean it to come across like a bias, that's how it comes across. We need to judge notability based on the availability and depth of the available coverage- not on what someone's publishing status is. Yes, the publishing status can have an impact on the coverage, but saying "self-published, delete" isn't really how we should argue for deletion. I'm not really doing this in order to argue that the guy should be kept, I just really would prefer that people base their deletion arguments based on coverage in RS. It's no different than when we have people coming in and arguing "this book was published through Penguin, so notable" because you're not giving any sort of explanation as to why being self-published makes him non-notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will say it: "Barton is like your typical self-published author in that he lacks the coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:NAUTHOR." The article also fails WP:BIO. I am really surprised that you are putting up such a vigorous defense over such an insignificant article - especially one that is so poorly sourced and which fails to offer any clue of the subject's notability as a fiction writer or a journalist. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not over the article. I could honestly care less if this article survives or gets deleted. What bothers me is how you phrased your deletion rationale. Nothing may come of this in the end with this specific AfD, but we need to be very, very careful about how we phrase our AfD arguments. Not only could someone have a field day with a perceived bias at deletion review or in the media (who loves to point out how fallible Wikipedia is), but it sends out a very mixed message to people coming in for the reasons I stated above. We need to be able to clearly state why something/someone fails GNG because otherwise they don't understand why the article is getting deleted and this can cause a lot of issues in the long run. Even though in most cases self-published means non-notable, that's not always the case and sometimes just saying "self-published, non-notable" can give off the impression that we didn't look hard enough for sources or do everything we could. I'm not saying that you didn't look, just that we have to think about how it looks to other people. That's why it's so important for us to put in stuff about the subject/person lacking reliable sources. I just don't want people to think that we didn't look for sources or that we're just automatically assuming that no sources exist because something is fringe/indie/self-published/promotional/etc. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment In future, I would strongly recommend that you please review WP:AGF. Your assertion that I did not look for sources prior to listing this AfD is utterly insulting - I actually spent a great deal of time doing research to determine the viability of this article and its subject. And no one is going to "have a field day with a perceived bias" over a clearly stated fact that the subject's literary output is almost entirely based in vanity press output. What a bizarre idea! And as I very clearly stated in the AfD nomination, the sourcing is terrible and the original article (which has since been edited, but not improved) tried to give Mr. Hickins a degree of notability by putting him in association with well regarded individuals and institutions. There is no evidence that Mr. Hickins has achieved any professional accomplishment that warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, as per this website's editorial guidelines. The article is a complete failure of WP:BIO and deserves to go. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to walk away now, but I want to say that this wasn't solely directed at you- it was also directed at User:Wefihe, whose argument was mainly that the book was self-published and didn't even really mention anything about sourcing. My big concern is that I just want people to be cautious about this sort of thing because there is a big automatic assumption that self-published books are notable and a lot of people are just arguing for deletion based upon that alone, as in Wefihe's deletion argument. We have to be very, very careful about how we phrase things because lately I've seen people post deletion rationales with the argument "indie film, non-notable" or "fringe professor, NN", and so on. We need to just be careful about how we phrase things when making deletion or keep rationales. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "...there is a big automatic assumption that self-published books are notable." Where? Certainly not in the publishing industry, where iUniverse and Lulu and Xlibris and those other vanity press sites have zero credibility. Wefihe (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: On a side note, if anyone can track down the actual reviews listed in the Amazon "editorial reviews" sections, this would help solidify his notability as he's apparently been reviewed by the Review of Contemporary Fiction and Hartford Courant. We can't use the one from Columbia University, since he attended the college and they have a good reason to give him a positive review since it reflects well on them. Also seems to have been written (in an editorial aspect) in this article by IEEE. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - meets WP:AUTHOR per book reviews listed in the article, and per User:Tokyogirl79's analysis and rationale above. NorthAmerica1000 20:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Really??? Let's take a look at WP:AUTHOR, which says: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - Two or three brief reviews is not the same being the recipient of multiple reviews; it is also unclear whether Blogcritics meets Wikipedia requirements. In any event, he also fails to meet every other aspect of WP:AUTHOR. Wefihe (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My !vote is based upon the following book reviews:
 * Kirkus
 * Publishers Weekly
 * Bookverdict Library Journal
 * "Picks and Pans Review: The Actual Adventures of Michael Missing". People Magazine
 * Note that the Bookverdict review is paywalled (see WP:PAYWALL), and has more content than appears onscreen. The subject meets WP:AUTHOR in my opinion. NorthAmerica1000 02:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note The People Magazine review is not online anymore - I removed the dead link. The Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews are one paragraph write-ups - not exactly an in-depth review. I never heard of Bookverdict and I am not interested in paying to read this. I have to agree with Wefihe in that two one-paragraph reviews and one review that is not accessible makes for a pretty flimsy argument for WP:AUTHOR. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The People Magazine link may be able to be found using web archive services, so I've restored it to the article and added a dead link template. Regarding paywalled links, please read WP:PAYWALL, where it states "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible...Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access..." NorthAmerica1000 18:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

*Comment, It's time someone did some work to improve article more. At moment I'm unable to do much as I'm having work done at home and that's time consuming. If I have an hour or 2 spare in the next few days I may have a go. But for now someone should do some work and we'll see. Thanks (Joecreation (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Keep Multiple book reviews noted in the article. BTW the review is by Library Journal not Bookverdict which licensed and republished the content from LJ. Another link. Any links behind a paywall can be verified via WP:REX. -- Green  C  00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I've revised my !vote above to reflect the original review source, and changed it to a straight keep. NorthAmerica1000 13:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since almost all of the sources in this still-deficient BLP point to the "Michael Missing" book, it might make sense to rewrite the article into a profile of the book. Hickins still fails WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has notability with various reviews of his works. Frmorrison (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Nearly all of the reviews are for his "Michael Missing" book, with a single review for the self-published "Blomqvist." Again, the article fails WP:BIO - if anything, the article, if not deleted, should be rewritten with a focus on "Michael Missing" and not on its elusive author. And, by the way, when the hell is this AfD going to be over? This has been going on for nearly three weeks. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (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.