Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Florida

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Florida. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Florida|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Florida. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Florida/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Florida

FSU Homecoming Live

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

Topic is an annual university event that does not appear notable. Popular artists have performed at the event but the event doesn't inherit any notability from that. After searching I can only find local and self-published sources. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Council on Compensation Insurance

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

There are no references at all to this insurance-related industry-funded company in Florida. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article needs to be improved and sourced (If I have time I will do those things later,) but this article has reliable sources and the subject is notable. After all, notability is based off of the existence of sources, not just the ones in the article. It's also a non-profit, not really a company. Here we go: [1][2][3][4][5][6] (Primary, non independent source), [7][8][9][10][11][12]. In essence, this is a data collection non profit for the insurance industry, and its relatively influential and important. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and the WP:NORG guidelines. In the future, please conduct an adequate WP:BEFORE check. --AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K'ameronn Joseph

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

Non-notable Youtuber and American Footballer. Fails all relevant notability guidelines. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Internet, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator, he's in a minor league Arena League team, which typically does not guarantee notability. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Goodall

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources are all primary while a BEFORE didn't come up with anything much better. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, Ohio, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article on Jacob Goodall lacks sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. While he has participated in collegiate and lower-division professional soccer, there is no significant coverage that establishes lasting notability. The existing references are primarily routine sports announcements and do not provide in-depth analysis or recognition of his impact in the sport. Without substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, the article does not satisfy the criteria for notability and should therefore be deleted.Maltuguom (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Jaime

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are primary and while a BEFORE found coverage at [[13]], student newspapers generally aren't considered as being independent. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Byrne (baseball)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he arguably might pass GNG, but I don't think we need to keep historical biographies on baseball players who never reached the highest level unless the GNG pass is clearly non-trivial/routine, and he didn't get any significant coverage outside of his local area. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, here is 2025 coverage I will add. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly routine. SportingFlyer T·C 18:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 2025 article shows continued notability, should meet BASIC or athletic notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, since I understand the point about the 2025 article, but I couldn't find anything more than just that And yes, I know that in the past I claimed to be unfamiliar with the deletion policy, but I am now. JTZegers (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 2025 article brought up by Muboshgu is non-routine SIGCOV, but that alone is not enough to pass GNG, which generally requires multiple such references. Willing to reconsider if more coverage is made available so please ping me. Frank Anchor 21:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a local transactional report about him getting hired. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with this assessment as it also includes several paragraphs of significant content from his playing career in addition to the routine details of a transactional report. However, I am still at delete as explained in my above !vote. Frank Anchor 12:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he had multiple articles about him in college, plus the 2025 article that Muboshgu found, which is not routine, so passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Beard

AfDs for this article:

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

In this entry's third AfD nomination, the intuitive votes would appear to be Keep or Delete, rather than Merge/redirect. The first nomination in December 2007 — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard, with three votes — resulted in deletion. It was recreated in 2012 and nominated — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard (2nd nomination) — in November 2018. There were three Delete votes, one Delete/redirect vote and three Merge/redirect votes, resulting in Mathew Beard redirecting to either List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest known Americans or List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men (currently redirecting to the latter). However, his name does not appear on either list, nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia, thus making the Mathew Beard redirect that appears among similarly-named men on the Mat Beard disambiguation page completely unhelpful. If the Mathew Beard page is deleted, Talk:Mathew Beard, which has a number of postings as well as links to the two deletion discussions should be probably deleted as well. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous nominations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom there is no notability as he wasn't even the oldest living person https://longeviquest.com/2023/03/mathew-beard-status-reclassification/ Scooby453w (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with any redirects that point to this guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little confused though thus article had alreahd been deleted years ago only for the nominater to engage in an edit war by removing the re direct only to nominate the page for afd. What is the point? Scooby453w (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathew Beard entry was not actually deleted but merely unhelpfully redirected, with the article itself still fully accessible via its history. As for the purported "edit war", this simple edit, which only served to append the AfD template, was mistakenly assumed to represent aggressive editing. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then you could've just nominated the re direct for deletion then? Scooby453w (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon entering the link Mathew Beard via its history, users are able to determine that it is not a standalone redirect that could be handled at WP:RfD, but a still-existing, albeit redirected, article, with an active Talk:Mathew Beard, that needed to be treated as an article, via submission to WP:AfD. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Aminpour

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

Non-notable US attorney. No reliable sources, and would seem unlikely any exist. Clearly promotional. WP:NOT. Fails WP:GNG. WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, 'nuff said. Newspapers.com has no results, never a good sign. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Lack of sufficient press coverage. Promotional tone. It should be speedy deleted, because of no sign of notability. Zuck28 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination speaks for itself, but I will also pitch in to say that at least half of the citations are not independent of the subject. --Mpen320 (talk)
Delete There seems to be no RSes that support notability here. If that changes, please let me know. If we allow for promotional sources to be included, there is no reason every attorney should not have their own promotional page on here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There's literally no allegation of notability, and he also fails my standards for attorneys. He's about as run of the mill as lawyers get. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colts–Jaguars rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to have coverage from sources discussing a rivalry, and as such WP:NRIVALRY is not met. Article was recreated after being deleted in a earlier deletion discussion and while this version has more sourcing, it still does not have sources to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Florida, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete No sources seem to cover the rivalry in-depth. The sheer number of routine coverage articles seems like a WP:REFBOMB, so it's difficult to say for sure whether all 100+ sources have no significant coverage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clear pass of WP:NRIVALRY from my perspective. As much as I've supported getting rid of a number of rivalry articles, I can't fathom deleting one about two division rivals who have played each other twice a year for 23 years. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRIVALRY requires GNG level coverage discussing the rivalry in-depth. Which sources do you thing cover this series as a rivalry? Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on NFL rivalries, but a quick search in Newspapers.com reveals many sources discussing the pairing as a rivalry. E.g., (1) "Colts, Jaguars renew rivalry", (2) "Colts-Jaguars South rivalry getting intense" (part 1/part 2), (3) "Rivalry has evolved quickly", (4) "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry", (5) "Young rivalry gets stirred up", (6) "Colts' 'rivalry' fires up Jags" - early article discussing factors (part 1/part 2), (7) "There's no love lost: Plenty of bad blood between rivals Colts, Jaguars". Why doesn't such extensive coverage reporting on the rivalry show that there is or was a rivalry? Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that most of these pieces are merely WP:ROUTINE game previews where the term 'rivalry' is used as a buzzword by journalists to try and get more people to read their paper, and do not cover the history of the purported 'rivalry' in-depth as needed to meet the guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. WP:NRIVALRY is one sentence deep and really shouldn't be used as the crutch for rivalry articles anyways. This would be a better way of calling it what it is User:Conyo14/Sports rivalries. Conyo14 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is more of divisional opponents rather than rivalry, since the two have had different eras of success, I wouldn't say it's a fierce rivalry, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of it's own page.

I'd say a similar thing about the Jaguars-Texans rivalry. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources presented by Cbl62 appear to be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think provide WP:SIGCOV of the rivalry itself, beyond WP:ROUTINE game coverage/previews? Let'srun (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. A source review would br helpful. One thing I've seen over the years is that WP:ROUTINE is in the eye of the beholder.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some further notes on a couple of the sources cited above:

Source (3) is a three-column feature story from a highly reputable source (the Associated Press) expressly focused on the rivalry published under the headline "Rivalry has evolved quickly." It traces the history of "a trash-talking atmosphere", the recent history of past games, the "geeked up" approach of the players to facing each other, and concludes in no uncertain terms that "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry."

Source (7) reviews the rivalry's 17-game history, the close finish in 13 of the 17 games, the "brutally competitive" nature of the games, the history of trash-talking including Colts referring to Jax as "our little brother", and a focus on the "bad blood" between the rivals ("They don't like us. We don't like them.")

Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Cb162. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haven't voted previously. After weighing everything, this seems like a keeper. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Colts and Jaguars have been division rivals since 2002, playing each other twice every season. Multiple articles, like the Associated Press piece titled "Rivalry has evolved quickly," discuss the history and intensity of their matchups. This coverage goes beyond routine game reports and meets the criteria for significant coverage. Per WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries with such consistent and notable coverage warrant their own articles. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am surprised to learn that this is a notable rivalry, but the sources provided indicate that it is. Rlendog (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Deletion

Check here for any current CfD.

Florida-related Templates for Deletion

None at present

Florida-related Miscellany for Deletion

None at present

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Florida

Florida

Categories for Deletion

Florida-related Templates for Deletion

Florida-related Miscellany for Deletion

Proposed deletions