Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Miranda

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Tom Miranda

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Tom Miranda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I could not find any evidence of the subject passing WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, with no independent secondary reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject (with the possible exception of an offline South Dakota Hall of Fame magazine article which has not been verified yet). For example, this HuntingLife interview isn't exactly an independent secondary reliable source. I also could not find evidence that his works are sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:NAUTHOR.

Also see the unfruitful requests for reliable sources on the article subject from last week at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Source check for Tom Miranda and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#Source check for Tom Miranda. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep With some love this can be an acceptable article Rossouw (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Whether a subject warrants having a Wikipedia article is based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Without independent reliable secondary sources, this subject isn't notable under those guidelines regardless of cleanup. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep I have found these: 1, might be used to show him as n expert in his field, 3, a review, 5, another review, 7, several facts here. The interview that the nominator mentioned can be used to support some of the facts as well - there's an introduction with some info. I am voting a weak keep as I'm not that good in the hunting sphere and can't evaluate the quality of the sources above. But there is enough sigcov. Less Unless (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Those aren't sources that go towards WP:GNG/WP:BASIC: published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
    • The first reference (Bowhunting) is entirely based on a recent press release, which is not independent content.
    • The second reference (ESPN) is from his employer ESPN talking about his show on ESPN and is therefore not an independent source.
    • The third reference (Game & Fish) is a Meet Tom Miranda interview (also listed on their website as an editorial) which is not independent content nor secondary.
    • The fourth reference (Bowsite) is a book review from a source that doesn't appear to be a reliable source nor an independent source either: it is by the founder of a forum that Miranda frequents ("you interact on Bowsite quite a bit")
    • The fifth reference (Rhea Review) is an interview promoting a local event and is not independent content nor secondary.
    • The sixth reference (Tom Miranda The Rut Hunters Whitetail SLAM Blog) is a blog post promoting a book; it isn't close to being a reliable source.
    • The seventh reference (Outdoor Hub) is a press release (which is also why it's labeled pr) and is therefore not an independent source nor secondary.
    • The eighth reference (Southern Illinois University) only mentions Miranda when quoting him and doesn't give any significant coverage of Miranda.

There must be significant coverage from sources that are simultaneously secondary, independent, and reliable' sources. Each of the given references are lacking at least one of those three qualities. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with your source analysis, I think there might be more off-line sources from the 80th and 90th. He seems to be a well-known figure in his field. I'm not trying to speculate here per WP:SOURCESEXIST but it's often the case in the pre and early internet era. I do not oppose the deletion, but I believe it's the last resort. The current state of the article is inappropriate, but maybe there's someone who has access to hunting\wildlife magazines? If nothing is found I'll support the deletion. My search also showed these, but as I can't access the whole information, so I don't know if any of them qualifies: 1, 2, 3, 4. I hope you get my point. Best, Less Unless (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Less Unless: I understand your point completely, which is why I also posted at WT:ACTOR and WT:TV for a source check three weeks ago before opening this AfD. Nothing turned up there, and neither of us have been able to find anything besides passing mentions and connected/unreliable sources. At this point in the continued absence of significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources, the guidelines support deletion.

From what I can see, those four sources also appear to be passing mentions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• This belongs on IMDB, not Wikipedia.Civilitypromoter (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It has been 1 month since I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Source check for Tom Miranda and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#Source check for Tom Miranda asking if anyone could find significant coverage in reliable sources for this subject to pass GNG. None have been brought up there nor during this AfD in that timespan, and no arguments have been advanced for any other notability guideline. On guideline-based arguments, this is a clear deletion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:52, 13 May 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.