Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Indiana

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Indiana. 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|Indiana|~~~~}} 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 Indiana. 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/Indiana/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Indiana

Nyzzy Nyce

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. No social media presence, no real coverage for a BLP. Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article in question was soft deleted in 2022, which I agree was the best solution at the time. Likewise, I think that soft deletion is the appropriate solution here, as subject clearly fails notability guidelines, however clearly has some level of presence that may transpire into notability in the future. JacobTheRox (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I don't feel too strongly about it. Googling the name seems to wield plenty of results, but not all are independent. Barely any of the citations in the article actually mention Nyzzy. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Palmer

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

No notable wrestler. Worked for 2 years as develoment talent. No enough in-deep coverage around her from reliable sources, just WP:ROUTINE results. Since she retired, the article will be no larger. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about her career especially as a professional wrestler. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland, Indiana

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

No other sign of a town here, so as the source says, probably just a station stop with a post office. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of official settlement Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a similar situation to what happened to Joppa, but here there's no proof that the town existed at all, other than as a railroad stop. Seems that this article was a WP:BADIDEA from the get-go; just because there are records doesn't mean it's notable. JTZegers (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harris, Indiana

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

Here the cited source actually says there was nothing at "Harris station" except a grain elevator and a post office. And there's nothing there now, so not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Downey Corner, Indiana

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

A corner with no documentation besides GNIS and appearing in a list of places in a history of the county. Mangoe (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a T-intersection in the middle of nowhere. The name does appear on USGS maps going back at least to 1959, but none of those show anything more than a farmhouse at the site. Clearly not a community, fails WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Shor, Indiana

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

An actual camp, now called Campshore but before that, a resort catering to Orthodox Jews (there are numerous journal references to this effect) and before that, acto this Arcadia book, named "Laughrey Club". Their claim that it was inundated and is gone is not true, but the testimony to the "Camp Shor" phase is clear if not terribly deep. I'm a bit dubious as to its own notability though our article on Young Israel might have a place for it. In any case, it is plainly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Everything by this lazy creator who bulk-created false articles. Reywas92^Talk 01:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins, Indiana

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

A spot on the railroad just east of Newton, close enough that on Streetview you can see the structures of the latter off in the distance. This is now the site of a warehouse and nothing else; back in the late 1950s there was a different, smaller building and a single house, but hardly a town. Seems to have just been a rail spot, though at least it amde it onto the topos without the help of the highway department. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Mangoe. A quick Google search turns up nothing notable on the subject. Only two results relating to the topic. One result is this article, and the other is its entry on mapquest. Neither entries show anything notable. Editor113u47132 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though i added a source to a 1955 county history that calls it a "small hamlet", it appears to be the location of what was a grain elevator and a house or two, also called "Perkin's Switch". U.S. 24 bends around those buildings, it appears, so one can imagine the place name became Perkins but its a stretch to call it a "hamlet".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 3 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]

Anthony Lyza

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

Fairly unremarkable other than a few published papers on a largely niche topic (tornadoes/severe weather). By this stretch, every meteorologist (especially many professors in academia) who author papers should have Wikipedia articles, which isn't the case. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hate to say it but I agree that they just don't meet the bar of notability. I think instead of making new articles on meteorologists we should, as a project, work on improving the quality of existing articles; see the dreadful state of Ted Fujita, for instance. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say that the USA Today source doesn't mean anything for notability in my eyes. Lyza was brought on as an expert to explain the individual study about the same topic covered at EF5 drought. This is, in my eyes, as routine as coverage gets - especially his qualifications being described by USA Today as simply lead author on the new study about the EF5 tornado drought. It would be different if the article was specifically about Lyza, or if Lyza was described as being top of his field or otherwise academically vital. Departure– (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - enough sources to justify notability.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several secondary reliable sources besides academic papers reference or interview/quote Anthony Lyza and his works, including the New York Times and many other articles: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Clearly passes the bare minimum of WP:PROF and WP:BIO, especially since the US government even posted he is a tornado “expert”. WP:PROF says if a person passes any of the listed items, then they are notable. The first point of WP:PROF is “

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” That seems clear, given the tons of sources discussing Lyza and his work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Alabama, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?. The subject has a very small number of citations in GS. What is the reason for this? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Small? This indicates he has 13 publications from 2017-2024, +1 not listed published in January 2025. So, he has at least 14 different publications that would be on GS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - The USA Today reference is the make-or-break for me here, as it does indeed show him being mentioned in major news outlets. — E_F⁵ 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS gives 167 cites. Normally 1000+ cites is required for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Oh! That is what you meant by not many GS citations. Most meteorologists use respective country-based academic publication societies, rather than GS to find sources. For example, in US is the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Just by looking at the AMS-website metrics alone for the 2025 paper that Mr. Lyza was lead author on ([9]) show 7281 full text views. AMS does not keep track directly of who cited the paper, only records of downloads and views. That paper has over 7,000 views just since January 2025 (it was released January 23, 2025). Hopefully that helps. AMS contains probably 80% of the meteorologically published papers that are often cited in textbooks or by other meteorologists. This is one of those fields of science where GS is actually not the most used/useful measurement tool. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reading the above discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are evenly divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable enough so it's not improper to include him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:ACADEMIC. He has a PhD, and you don't need a job at a university to be an academic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a PhD is not mentioned anywhere as a criteria for notability. Departure– (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source assessment table:

Per my analysis, the sources presented in this discussion do not contain significant coverage of the person in question, hence he does meet WP:GNG which states thatA topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NACADEMIC states that an academic is notable ifThe person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Additionally, he does not meet the rest of the criteria as set forth at WP:NACADEMIC. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: I disagree entirely with your claim that "There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Numerous of the articles above are related to the EF5 drought study led by Mr. Lyza. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire section just about Mr. Lyza's study: EF5 drought#January 2025 study. Regarding the EF5 study led by Lyza, I can find [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. All of those sources are specifically in regards to the study produced by Lyza. Could you go into more detail and explain why ypu believe the EF5 study discussed by all of these RS do not provide such evidence? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What changed after they published their study? What "significant impacts" were there after they published their study? It's nice and all that the sources covered the study, but they don't provide evidence that it had a "significant impact" in "their scholarly discipline". For example, if there is evidence that this study led to a reform of the Enhanced Fujita scale in regards to rating tornadoes, or maybe something changed within the field of tornadoes, meteorology... that would fulfil the first criterion. But as of yet, it's probably too early to tell and it seems that most of the coverage is on the study than the authors themselves. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the EF5 drought is just a small trend in the greater subject of tornado climatology, so one study analyzing this subject in-depth wouldn't equate to "significant impact" across meteorology. Not yet, anyway. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, while it is relatively benign with general meteorology (the NWS is likely choosing to ignore it), the general public and public media have definitely picked up on it. But yes, the Lyza drought study isn't super significant in the field, mainly outlining the reasoning, which is already well-known (survey ignorance). — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic, the shift focuses from academic notability to public interest and we run back into GNG arguments again. While the EF5 drought is notable and Lyza's study of it helps demonstrate that, it doesn't itself make Lyza himself notable. Departure– (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not pass WP:NPROF nor WP:GNG (see table above). --hroest 20:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - our usual rules for citations works about as well for meteorological purposes as the EF-5 standard, which is to say, not very well. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Indiana

Indiana

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)