Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Hicks


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Randall Hicks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 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)

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)
 * 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)

I thought the article had more than enough sources where the books are reviewed, or the author quoted. Most author articles just have a couple sources. Today I added Rocky Mountain News, Chicago Sun-Times, Los Angeles Times, Rocky Mountain News, Library Journal, and more. There are countless reviews or references in lesser newspapers but am just including the major ones I was able to find. Gelo962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, The Baby Game has won the Gumshoe Award for best first novel and been nominated for others, has also been reviewed by lots of WP:RS, Baby Crimes also has reviews, (btw these two books could arguably have their own articles), another of Hicks' books, Adopting in America also has plenty of reviews, and being held by around 500 libraries could also warrant a separate article. ps. article references to lots of these reviews so i'm not listing them here. pps. the article creator,, left a message on my talkpage asking me to look at this afd, as it is listed here in the authors afd list, that i regularly check out, i don't believe there are any WP:CANVAS issues. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any notability, as a lawyer, author or actor. If his sole claim to notability is one book getting a specialty award, that's WP:ONEEVENT; and is already noted in Gumshoe Awards, and there's really nothing else worth notice about that. It really looks like the article is an attempt to take that single fact and leverage it into a full-blown promotional article for Hicks's legal practice and legal writing.
 * I am not swayed that 500 libraries stock one of his books. There are 1300+ libraries that hold copies of Javascript for Dummies but we don't have an article on Emily A. Vander Veer. Very few books aren't held by at least a couple hundred libraries. I don't think library stock is a relevant factor at all. TJRC (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * yep, and if Javascript for Dummies has plenty of reviews (and forgive my computer ignorance, but is Javascript an american-only compulanguage?, otherwise a "dummies" book would be expected in thousands of libraries world-wide, with Adopting in America i would not expect to see it in my local library outside north america), and/or won/been nomonated for awards, and that Vander Veer has written a couple more reviewed books (although having written just 1 book does not preclude a wikiarticle ie. (up till 2016) Harper Lee), then yes, Vander Veer would be notable enough for a wikiarticle, as for "Very few books aren't held by at least a couple hundred libraries.", just have a look at previous literature afd "deletes" to see numerous books that are not (also, as a book hoarder, ahem:), collector i would have 100s of books that are only held in a handful of libraries - one reason why this wikikit didn't pursue librarianship, "what!, librarians cull books, noooooooo.....) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, Gelo962 here, the article creator. I have a sincere question for those of you who know more than me about proper Wikipedia inclusion of facts. The person above mentions the author is not notable. One of the facts which showed Hicks's national recognition as an author and expert in the adoption field was the fact he's been on a bunch of national TV talk shows (CBS This Morning, The Today Show, et cetera.) Initially I mentioned those in the article. But someone said it was "promotional," so I took it out. I'm truly at a loss. I don't see it as promotional, but now that facts like that are not in there, there is someone saying there is nothing "notable" about him (despite his writing 7 or 8 books, reviews or mentions of the books in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Orange County Register, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal. . . So someone please tell me if I should add the TV talk shows back in there with cites to the newspapers that mention them and ihdb.com. Thanks so much. Gelo962 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
 * The effective thing to do is simply to add the WP:RS to the page. Such as reviews in major newspapers.  it is far more efficient and effective than arguing.  Once you have improved the article, you can say so in a ocmment that begins WP:HEYMANN.  As you will see by following link" WP:BLUDGEON Endless comments simply exhaust other editors ans make them decide not to bother.  As do pages overstuffed with unimpressive links, like articles that mention or quote a wirter, without discussing her/him in any depth.  Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case,, the page was so oversourced with such inadequate sourcing that, having looked at the sources - and due to the endless nature of your comments, I made an assumption and I failed to run an independent search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)  See below, I have now searched, I really searched.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the best source on the page, indeed, the sole source on the page that supports notability is source # 4, a brief feature article in the local section of the The San Diego Union-Tribune, but an article in your local paper ≠ notability. The rest of the plausible sources are stuff like IMDB and reviews in Publisher's Weekly - trade publications that establish the existence of a work, not its notability.  He's been quoted here and there.  Notability is just not there.  WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if this page, or the Talk page is the right place to put this, so I am putting my reply to sirlanz that I've added cites as he requested in both places. I apologize if I'm not doing this correctly. Here is my comment made there. Thanks, Sirlanz, for pointing out the lack of needed cites. Here is my reply from Talk:  Thanks SirLanz for your comments and pointing out that your concern is lack of cites of the Gumshoe and that there is no cite re the other three awards that he was an actual finalist (usually there are 3-5 titles short-listed), rather than "nominated" which I understand you to mean that anyone can be nominated for something. What is frustrating to me is I am sure I gave cites for all you requsted but the entire sentence re awards was deleted. I don't believe I did that. Did someone else? I do not know why as every author page lists awards and nominations (more on that in a moment. But to answer your concern I did the following: 1) I created links to the Wikipedia page for all four awards. Please note that rigth on the Wikipedia articles for the Gumshoe (winner) and Anthony (finalist), Hicks is listed right there on the page. But regardless, for all four awards, I've relisted links showing he was the winner or a finalist. I know you are now saying you didn't mean it when you said the awards were not significant, but may I address that anyway, perhaps to whomever deleted the sentence about them. Barnes and Noble, in their mystery/thriller section, lists the eleven major book awards in the genre. Please note that the Gumshoe, Anthony, Barry and Macavity are all listed. Now, about the significance of the four awards (even as a finalist and not being the winner) and the obvious propriety of listing the awards, I did a quick review of author articles on Wikipedia. Significantly, note that I did not go to pages of "small" authors rather the biggest authors, I think all New York Times bestselling authors. So you and others can check out my point that these major authors all have these four awards listed in their articles. Re the Gumshoe, it is significant enough that it is mentioned even when just a finalist (Joseph Finder, Reed Ferrel Coleman), and major mystery authors' articles listing winning the Gumshoe (C.J. Box, Barry Eisler), and other major authors listing the other three awards as winners or finalists (Michael Connelly, Lee Child, Robert Crais). My point is I didn't even have to try to find such authors. The first half dozen I tried made my point. So I really feel I've addressed your concerns and you will elect to join those voting to keep the article. And no one has still answered my question... Hicks has been credited with being on 4 or 5 network talk shows (CBS This Morning, et cetera) and hosted a PBS series many years ago. These clearly show his national recognition. So do I list them to show that? Or will someone again state that is somehow promo not credits? Those people can't fairly have it both ways. Lastly, in looking at many author articles, I found blatant promo, where gushy blurbs of reviews were included. There is none of that in the article I created. Also, many longstanding author articles have only a cite or two besides the author website for info. My article is very well researched, with book review or book recommendations in the NYT, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, hollywood.com, ihdb.com, et cetera. Thanks so much for your reconsideration. All the above, and writing eight books, seem to clearly make a person notable. Ill try to copy this to the other page on retention/deletion to make sure you see it. Thanks. Gelo962 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo862
 * WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note Revisiting this at the request of User talk:Gelo962 on my talk page. I am searching, and not finding notability. User:Coolabahapple, are you sure? I started to rethink in the light of your comment above.  But when I search on Proquest new archive, for "the baby game" + "Randall Hicks"  all I see is some local book PROMO, (a handful of local feature stories & bookstore signings,) Baby Cries has only 1 local feature, no signings.  Not the reviews you seem to think exist, except, of course the ones in the trade journals.  Reviews in PW and Library Journal are simply not enough to pass WP:CREATIVE 4,c.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Similarly, his nonfiction book Adopting in America got a pair of local feature stories and a mention or two in stories about adoption. User:Coolabahapple, are you quite sure about your assertion that it got "plenty of reviews"?  I don't mean to be hard on you, I know that we all make mistakes, but you are usually an extremely reliable editor.  Not one given to making unsupported assertions.  I just can't find reviews in mainstream publications, or even in trade journals for lawyers.  I accept that the book sold, but the fact that a book sold does not make it a notable book. , a librarian who will have an opinion worth listening to, if she has time/inclination to weigh in.  Frankly I am not seeing sources that pass WP:AUTHOR.  Being successful at self-promotion (getting feature stories in local papers and bookstore signings) is NOT the same as being a notable writer, or a notable expert on a topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:AUTHOR #3 (...must have been the primary subject of (...) multiple independent periodical articles or reviews),, , , . Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Insufficient to establish notability as per WP:AUTHOR. The first source listed by Vejvančický is the local section of his local newspapers. The 2nd is January Magazine - does anyone know if this is a reliable source? The final 3 are PW, a trade magazine that gives snippet reviews to pretty much every book backed by a publisher. It is generally regarded at AFD as establishing that a book exists, not that it or its author is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Question. I've asked this several times but no one has answered it. Maybe the bold with help. I'm looking for genuine advice here as I don't have the experience all the above people do. Re the question of national recognition and notariety, as well as of interest re the subject (Hicks), should I list all his appearances on the national TV talk shows? Except for CBS This Morning, which is still on, the others are not, but I recognize several of them as network shows, big in their day, reaching millions of people. I know the author's bio is evidently not sufficient as a source, and I seem to recall one or two of the articles I cited mentioned some of the TV shows and the PBS hosting, but I don't recall which ones and I don't want to go through them again. I know ihdb lists many of them. Is this seen as a credible source? I see them under the film biography in "Other Works." But many are from the 1990s so I'd have no idea how to find a "source" for them other than ihdb. So, again, do I list the five talk shows/news shows' credits from ihdb, or just mention them here toward showing Hicks's national recognition re his books but not mention them in the article? Thanks in advance for the help. Gelo962 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
 * Respond Notability standards can be found at WP:AUTHOR: 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. In practice, this wold mean, at a minimum, that at least one - and usually more - books have been the subject of substantive reviews in well-known journals.
 * and 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. This means precisely what it says.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, there are WP:GNG  and WP:BASIC.  Read them carefully.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * hi, revisiting this, maybe "plenty of reviews" for Adopting in America was a bit of an exaggeration, there are 3 after a gsearch ie. Publishers Weekly - "No touchy-feely paean to the joys of adopting, Hicks's book is a nuts-and-bolts, practical guide to the entire process of adopting a child.", Library Journal - "Hicks, a renowned adoption attorney, has updated his hallmark reference work, first published more than a decade ago.", Booklist - subscription required, and the article on Hicks lists a review by the Chicago Sun-Times, so that makes 4, as for "except, of course the ones in the trade journals. Reviews in PW and Library Journal are simply not enough to pass WP:CREATIVE 4,c (or is it 3. - "or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.")" isn't really so cut and dry, just have a look at this afd discussing the can of worms that is trade reviews, and the nbook talkpage touches on it in places (i personally believe if we discounted trade reviews it would be the end of civilisation as we know it (apologies to sir humphrey:))) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll bow to the consensus of the editors in the discussions you cite.  END.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response to my question re the TV shows. I actually just hoped for a "include them" or "don't include them," as there seems to be a lot of grey area and I'm trying to learn them and fit in and you all know them better than me. Frustrating to me is that the "delete" voters mention not enough national print media attention. I guess I disagree, but regardless, one can't dispute the multiple network TV and news appearances that are in addition to the print media. What percentage of listed authors on Wikipedia have been on 4 or 5 national network news/talk shows? Maybe less than one percent? But forced to decide on my own to list them in the article or not, I am of the opinion that mentioning them in the article is not appropriate as kind of showy - not directl related to an author page - but important to mention here for editors to be aware of as significant national recognition. So here they are listed on imdb, which I have always thought of as a legit site, but maybe it does not measure up to your standards? I honestly don't know, butI don't know where else to see TV shows someon appeared on listed, other than the "author bio" stuff, which I know is not acceptable. And it is funny that someone said they wanted more major press sites, because I listed more initially, but another editor removed them and said "over cited," so I kind of can't win. I'm not going to research them again and add them. I simply found them with plain old Google searches combining "Randall Hicks," with words like "The Baby Game, "Adopting in America," "Baby Crimes," "author," and "attorney." Thanks, Gelo962 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC) I see your point, Bearian, so I deleted "attorney" from the introductory line and left only "writer." I'd included "attorney" as one of his key books was written as an attorney and on a legal subject, but I get your point that's more of a sub note to be mentioned only within the article. Thanks. Gelo962 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962
 * Keep: It clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Randall Hicks is skilled person who is an expert in his field. Therefore, I agree that the article is notable.  - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a popular writer, but for the record he badly fails every test as a notable lawyer, including both my standards and the failed proposal about law. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2017 (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.