Talk:Randall Hicks

COI and Notability discussion

I think I wrote this elsewhere, but maybe this the right place instead. I do not know why it is said I'm a friend or relative or whatever the phrase was. My only connection to Randall Hicks is I attended a conference where he was a speaker and I had him sign one of his books, just as I have more than a hundred authors, as I am a big reader. Most of the authors I read already have pages, so was pleased to see two, Randall Hicks and Brian Wiprud, did not. Both have been putting our books for more than 15 years, their books get great reviews and they've each won notable writing awards, so clearly worthy in my mind. And it was fun to research them and learn more facts to put in the articles. There are several more who are quite popular and successful whom I'd like to be adding soon as well. Regards, Gelo962

The underlying issue is notability, and notability isn't based on personal hunches, but well-defined specific (WP:Author) and general (WP:GNG) guidelines. Whilst you may feel they've won notable awards, I do not think objectively or in the wikipedia definition they constitute notable awards. The rationale for nominating the article was that the subject failed notability guidelines. The conflict of interest tag was one added due to experience; it's very common for a previously inactive editor to write an article on themselves or have someone do so on their behalf, creating something that is overly favourable (not neutral and encyclopaedic), something which challenges the integrity of wikipedia and is forbidden activity. To me, many alarm bells are ringing, but even if i was to assume good faith and put the 2011 edit you made on adoption where you inserted a Randall Hicks reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adoption_tax_credit&diff=prev&oldid=416490371) down to a quirky anomaly, and you truly are an unconnected fan of his literature who coincidentally works in the same field as his day job, this does not influence the notability discussion, which is entirely independent of COI.

Similarly, the article for Brian Wiprud does not seem to pass either notability tests, and I feel it reasonable to nominate this for deletion too. This isn't a witch hunt or outright rejection, it just opens up a discussion where others input on their perception of, or lack of, notability as per the guidelines. Rayman60 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Noting a number of well thought out good faith edits today, I have to say that there is still a notability gap here. The attempt to feature his film roles really fizzles because it appears he was no more than a minor extra in them. The "several books" claim source draws a blank (Page not found) and the Gumshoe Awards are simply run by a website and which appear to have only lasted for several years ending in 2008. Very weak attempt at notability. The subject just does not meet the threshold in my view. sirlanz 04:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gelo962 here, addressing above comments. Sirlanz, I see you mentioned above that "'the several books claim' draws a blank - page not found." Perhaps I'm looking at it today after an edit which moved a footnote, but I just checked and the online link (after "several books") to the New York Times article mentioning Hicks's book, and quoting him, works just fine. The other link is valid as well, but not an online link. And of course, there are many, many cites to his books throughout the article, not just there. And just FYI, the Gumshoe Award is not inactive since 2008 as you say. But the link I gave for years 2002 to 2008 is as I gave it, and it works. And I can't help it if no one updated the Wikipedia article on the Gumshoe. The Gumshoe Awards through the 2017 nominations is here: http://www.nsknet.or.jp/~jkimura/. Re notability, I took out the mention of the national TV shows Hicks has been on (according to some of the newspaper articles and ihdb.com - CBS This Morning, The Today Show, PBS talk show host of Adoption Forum, and quite a few more) as someone said that was promotional. I saw it as factual, like listing books, but I took it out. But now it does not seem fair to claim he is not "notable" as a reader like you does not see those national TV appearances as an author and expert in adoption mentioned. So do I put them back in? I'm really at a loss here. Re his acting credits, I agree completely it is not notable by itself. It seems only two roles were featured roles. I just put it in has part of his past, as I think such interesting facts are what make Wikipedia fun and helpful. If we could only list facts which by themselves made someone notable, then each article on authors and similar people would be bare bones. Lastly, regarding notability, he has written 7 or 8 well-covered books (New York Times, Rocky Mountain News, Chicago-Sun Times, Orange County Register, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal). I'll send this message to your personal page as well as I'm not sure if you will see this. I appreciate your comments above and I hope my additional information is helpful to you in judging the article. My fault if a link didn't work before. Gelo962 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962

Let's start with Gumshoe. The page provides only one link about Gumshoe and that link lists awards for just several years, up to 2008, and includes the statement that the awards no longer exist. The link provided in the above comment is to a cite which exhibits no connection to any award bestowing cite and is someone's personal blog site. So the problem remains that this award breaches WP requirements for notability. Hence, out it goes until it can be sourced properly. The remaining two awards cited give every impression of being little more than blogsite awards and likewise appear not meet WP award recognition requirements (for very good and obvious reasons like I can set up a award site today if it pleases me). A 1990 source was provided as support for publication of various books, all of which appeared after that date. There's every impression here that an editor is close to the subject and shooting for PROMO. Nevertheless, it is now clear that the subject has published fiction which has been independently reviewed, so on that basis notability may be supportable now. sirlanz 02:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sirlanz for acknowledging notability, but please let me respectfully comment on your disparagment of the awards Hicks won or was a finalist for, as you say they are just someone's meaningless blog creations. Here is a link to Michael Connelly photographed accepting his Barry. https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=985&q=barry+award+winner&oq=barry+award+winner&gs_l=img.3..0i24k1l2.2350.8731.0.9952.22.14.2.6.6.0.150.850.12j2.14.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.22.894...0j0i30k1j0i10i24k1j0i8i30k1.nf_F701v6wk#imgrc=EVO2k5TEm4GphM%3A. If you don't know his name, check out Wikipedia's page or just Google him. He's one of America's most successful mystery/crime authors. He would not go to someone's make believe award presentation to accept a bogus award. You can find plenty more such photos of similar recipients. Re the Anthony, it is the award of Bouchercon, the world's largest annual mystery convention. No need to give you photos to establish it as legit and major. Bouchercon Re the Macavity, here is a photo of Hank Phillippi Ryan and Reed Farrel Coleman receiving theirs. Look them up, major authors. People like this don't go to be presented with bogus or inconsequential awards. http://hankphillippiryan.blogspot.com/ Re the Gumshoe, I could not find photos. Maybe it's not given out at a convention like the others appear to be. But I've seen it referenced on countless mystery and crime book fiction book jackets so clearly the authors are proud of it as a legit award. It is listed here Category:Mystery_and_detective_fiction_awards in "pages in category: mystery and detective fiction awards, and has it's own Wikipedia page, as do all the other awards I mentioned. Re your comment on a 1990 source, I'm sorry but I don't understand the fault being found. Did I put something in the wrong place re where to cite it? Sorry, but maybe I just put something in the wrong place. I fail to understand how that relates to a "close to subject" comment. And re promo, one could say every author gets the same benefit being on Wikipedia, whatever benefit that might be. And as to him being an attorney, I fail to see how his books and their success have anything to do with benefiting his law practice. Is it his fault he is not yet deceased, or that he has a career as a successful writer? Thanks for your time in posting your comment. No one has answered my question about the TV show references. Should I keep them out, or add them to show his notability. I will do as instructed. Maybe the issue is no longer pertinent if you are agreeing with his notability now. Thanks. Gelo962 (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962.

No source for Gumshoe showing its surviving more than several years has been provided. While I expressed suspicions about the standing of Barry and Macavity, that was not the reason for editing the material out. The reason for those edits was clearly stated, i.e. that the claim that the book was a finalist was not to be found anywhere in the citations. They appear to have been no more than nominated. I do not support retention of the page as I do not suggest that notability is adequate but I am saying I agree, with recent improvements (and possibly more to come?), it's arguable. Gelo962 is also requested not to load up the page by reversing edits designed to reduce overciting, which is deprecated. sirlanz 00:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 23:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo862

Comment - i have removed the coi tag from the article page as i believe any possible issues about the article have been resolved. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)