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

Josh Levy (mayor)

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

Non-notable local politician that fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. All of the sources used are either WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, routine coverage of local elections, or not actually about the subject at all and just include his name. This exact article was declined and rejected multiple times by me and others at WP:AFC and you can see extensive discussion about it here and here. I also wrote a source-by-source review as an AfC comment that I ask an admin to please copy here for reference. The page creator has a history of moving the draft out of process and resubmitting without any changes. Even now, they requested the rejected drafts deletion just to immediately recreate the page in the mainspace. I would be agreeable to redirect to Hollywood, Florida as an ATD. cyberdog958^Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Politics, and Florida. cyberdog958^Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AI-generated - at least partially - seeing as how a number of the references include ?utm_source=chatgpt.com at the end of the url. Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. I don't think this meets WP:NPOL at all. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Hollywood, Florida#Government. Djflem (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mayor of a city of 150,000 could be notable. I have a first cousin who lives in Hollywood but I don't think they are friends. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Granitur

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Nieto

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of significant coverage. The only references in the article are primary and I couldn't find anything elsewhere to support notability. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, Indiana, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep subject looks notable based on Indyeleven.com. (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mysecretgarden, Indyeleven.com is his team's website. That is not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, didn't notice that. Changing my vote to DELETE. Mysecretgarden (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Karani

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only sources in the article are primary and all I could find elsewhere were a couple of sentences of coverage at [[1]], which isn't quite enough for notability to be established. While the previous AfD closed as "keep", that was based on WP:NFOOTY, which has since been depreciated. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, Kansas, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely no WP:GNG pass. best, GPL93 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Gil (soccer, born 1983)

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

The article seems to be AI generated as many others by this user and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Even the primary sources do not support some of the claims in the article. C 679 04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Florida. C 679 04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I didn't find anything about his spell at Vasco da Gama. And excluding the T&T newspaper source, none of the others seem reliable. If he was that important to futsal/beach soccer in the US there would certainly be more sources. Svartner (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was not made with AI.
Moderated BS world Cup Was nominated for Soccer League hall of fame for time with Beach Socer USA national team. According to the Wikipedia page for the 2012 Mundialito de Clubes, a player named “Gil” scored in two separate matches for Vasco da Gama. futsal, a sport with even less media coverage, has documented his national participation as well, as shown in this 2010 report from FutsalPlanet. This supports notability under WP:NATHLETE, which considers athletes who have competed at the highest level of their sport, including international representation. (sourcing for wiki page is needed, research can be done - and found). Wq4m820 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that none of these sources are independent or provide in-depth coverage of him. Svartner (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NATHLETE, SIGCOV is not required in the same manner as WP:GNG. That's Policy. Notability is established by participation at the highest level of competition, including international representation. Oscar Gil’s involvement with the U.S. national beach soccer team and participation in major international tournaments clearly meets this criterion. While stronger independent sourcing would be ideal (and can be worked on accordingly), the current evidence satisfies WP:NATHLETE’s standards for retaining the article. Wq4m820 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The actual language in WP:ATHLETE, which is in bold letters, is The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. JTtheOG (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wq4m820, please actually read WP:NSPORTS. All subjects must meet GNG, and all biographies of sportspeople are required to cite an IRS SIGCOV source. JoelleJay (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon rereading WP:NATHLETE in full, I recognize that significant coverage from at least one independent, reliable source is still required. I maintain that Gil’s international participation aligns with the competitive notability standard, but absent a SIGCOV source at this time. If deletion proceeds, I’d support userfication so the article can be improved for a future resubmission. Wq4m820 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per "renowned" in the first line. And the lack of an WP:NSPORTS pass. FOARP (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He does have coverage, e.g. this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While those do contain coverage, the first is not independent as it is the newspaper plugging the winner of its own award, and both are local coverage of a high schooler, so fail YOUNGATH. I think it's clear that if the only coverage is from his HS career then a standalone is not warranted, so delete. JoelleJay (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no prohibition on high school coverage from counting towards notability; YOUNGATH only says that it needs to be substantial and independent, though at the moment I agree with you on this subject's notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Atlantic Owls Hockey Club

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

The article seems to be AI generated as many others by this user and half of the links are not properly functioning. The only working, possibly independent source is WFLX, and it's not clear that it is sufficiently independent or deep coverage in any case. C 679 03:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Florida. C 679 03:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on the massive mess this user is making of biographies, but the WFLX and WPTV references should be the same thing (WPTV partially operates WFLX under agreement). The correct WPTV link is [2] and would be preferred. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep: The sources from WFLX and WPTV references are duplicates, but still count as one independent reliable source for GNG. The six sources from the university do not contribute, and the hockeywriters source is only a passing mention. Flibirigit (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with work) - Article can be improved and rewritten. WPTV/WFLX source is good. Yahoo Sports source adds to notability but comes from those above. * trvial mention here in larger reading on Florida collegiate hockey. * UPress, independent from the hockey club itself and adds independent coverage. This helps support notability under WP:NORG. Wq4m820 (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC) contribs)[reply]
Redirect to Florida Atlantic Owls#Non-varsity_sports, or merge with that section on the FAU Athletics article. The FAU hockey club is not notable and does not warrant its own article outside of the section on the FAU athletics page. Generally, college hockey clubs are not notable enough to get their own page, which is why there is usually a non-varsity section on the school's athletics article. Tomhol811 (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida Atlantic Owls: as an AtD. No evidence of sufficient independent WP:SIGCOV for a standalone page here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tobok

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

Not seeing WP:GNG being met. It is clear from one of the references ("Marketing, Branding & Public Relations Fast-Track Cyber Security Start-up") that he has spent a lot of work on his marketing and this has generated a lot of press releases and interviews used in this article, but there's nothing here that I consider to be in-depth, independent coverage about the man himself. He has written a book, published about 6 months ago, but it hasn't garnered a single review on Amazon. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bibliographies, and Computing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for two reasons. First, it's WP:TOOSOON: his book was only recently published and has yet to get reviews. The appearances on TV are by him, not about him, so none of them contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk)
Delete. I removed much of the blatant PR from the article; note that Stojan and his firm are SEO/PR flacks that have been spamming Wikipedia for ages. The previously removed USA Today 'contributor' piece was directly from another SEO firm. There's also a version of article with pretty much the same junk sourcing that was deleted by Jimfbleak last year. I can't seem to find much else; it's challenging to pick out reliable material from the flood of PR. The book is odd; I can't find anything on the publisher "Manhattan Business Press"; it only seems to have published this one work and the address is to a small law firm. The article states the publisher is "Pearl Street Sourcing Advisory Services", which contradicts the first few pages of the book itself. Not clear, but does not appear to be a notable work in any way.Sam Kuru (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – A couple of the references are OK in my opinion, but that is not enough to meet notability.Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. ✗plicit 23:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Academy Canyons

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

Non-notable school, doesnt pass WP:NSCHOOL. The article seems to be AI generated as many others by this user and half of the links are not properly functioning. Overall there isnt a single WP:RS that covers this school either in the article or on Google/Google News. hroest 16:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. hroest 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of these are independent, reliable source SIGCOV of this school -- fails GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree per nom and Fade258 - mostly reads promotional Asteramellus (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. ✗plicit 14:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Martinez

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

A non-notable academic. This likely AI-generated biography appears to have hallucinated some facts, for example saying that he was editor of the journal Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the sole source for which is a permanent dead link. Martinez's own CV does not list this editorship, nor does the journal's website. Since we cannot verify that he was a journal editor, he meets no other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC; his H-index of 22 is well below the normal range for a full professor in social sciences. He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR since his edited books have not had multiple reviews (and there is no consensus on whether co-editing a book counts for NAUTHOR). He doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO#1 for his Fulbright, 800+ of which are awarded every year, so it's not a particularly distinct honor. I don't see evidence that he's quoted regularly on his expertise in the mainstream press. (The AI appears to have hallucinated a nonexistent link to the New York Times website.) The citation for the sentence These books, reviewed in *Palgrave Macmillan* for their interdisciplinary approach, have been cited in *American Political Science Review* and *Political Psychology* for advancing survey measurement of ambivalence. does not actually mention Martinez' books at all and is likely another hallucination based on keyword similarity. In addition to failing WP:N, this bio has significant WP:V problems for a BLP and should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many LLM pages created by the same editor (30 one-edit articles), too many of which have since been draftified or nominated for deletion (see User talk:Wq4m820). At least one other I checked was full of AI hallucinations, similar to this. I will leave a gentle warning, hopefully the editor will adjust how they are creating pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 I found another that was AI-generated and went with the non-gentle warning, considering they've already gotten four warnings this month and have been non-responsive to those but continue to create problematic articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, all the articles must seem suspect. I see 6 articles on May 17 in the span of only 5 hours, 7 articles on May 15 in the span of just 3 hours each with 5-7kb of content. this seems all a bit fishy. --hroest 16:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits on the name in Gscholar, but I'm not sure they're about this same person. The fact that the editor has used AI to create other low-quality articles doesn't fill me with hope either for this... I don't see much of anything in a RS Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemable, nuke it and possibly start over. Geschichte (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I believe with his GS profile, with an h index of 22 and several publications with 100+ citations he is close to the bar of passing WP:NPROF but doesnt quite clear it in my book. I wouldnt quite write him off though, maybe this is just a bit WP:TOOSOON. However, given the other issues with the page, and that we cannot really trust anything that is currently written, there isnt really much to salvage. --hroest 16:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I was the original author of the article and that it was generated with AI assistance. I understand the community’s concerns regarding verifiability and notability, and I take full responsibility for the shortcomings in the original draft. That said, Michael D. Martinez does have some scholarly coverage and citations that might warrant a properly sourced and significantly rewritten article. If the community feels that the current version is beyond salvage (or intent for a new one is not worthwhile), I concur the consensus to delete.

Wq4m820 (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Kevin Alexander Boon

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

Autobiograpy of non notable filmmaker/academic. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Previous PROD deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing quite enough to satisfy WP:NCREATIVE. I found half a dozen reviews for a volume of essays that he edited [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], and one review each for two of his books [8] [9]. I wasn't able to find anything for any of his films. Based on those sources I think he falls just short of the bar for NCREATIVE, but could easily be swayed if anyone is able to find additional reviews of his works. MCE89 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found one other maybe-reliable review [10] but I'm not sure it changes the case much. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold F. Pryor

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

Subject clearly fails WP:NPOL. From GNG perspective, the sources either fail one or two of the three criteria. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This fails WP:SIGCOV. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This is probably substantial but fails WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:IRS. Others happen to be WP:ROUTINE. Hence, GNG is not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Kpg jhp jm 07:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a local politician, there's no presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and WP:ROUTINE local coverage of election activity does not count as WP:SIGCOV toward WP:GNG. I concur with VWF's source analysis here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician/attorney - needs more sources from outside his local political area to show notability per NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Harold F. Pryor’s role in vacating thousands of crack cocaine convictions has received notable coverage The Guardian, the overall coverage remains limited and tied mostly to this single issue. Given his relatively low public profile outside this matter as the elected State Attorney of Broward County, I understand and accept the rationale for deletion due to insufficient sustained independent notability.

Wq4m820 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bryan Greenlee

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

All I was able to find on this basketball player was this interview with the subject and this interview with his parents, which I don't believe warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Macedonia, Florida, and Minnesota. JTtheOG (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing sufficient independent SIGCOV to pass WP:NSPORT/WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be very little coverage of this individual beyond primary sources Garsh (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with work) - May meet notability due to FAU Final Four run. 1. trivial mention. 2. Televion interview. 3. Good source, notable mention. 4. Half discusses career, in short WPTV article. 5. Trivial mention, part of team that went to final 4 and contributed as a player. 6. Trivial mention in indep.article. 7. Interview (uni page)

Wq4m820 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found some coverage at [[11]], [[12]], and [[13]]. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 1: team-specific microblog (Owls247.com), author graduated from the same uni in 2023, also just 3 sentences of direct coverage
- 2: routine interview from unreliable source (WP:SPORTSKEEDA), also just 2 sentences of direct coverage
- 3: routine coverage from a reliable source
JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Model International

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE found some media about individual contestants like Inquirer (Philippines) but nothing substantial about the pageant itself. Existing sources are entirely fansites like fernandomachado.blog.br, "Misterology", "The Great Pageant Community", and "Indian and World Pageant" (defunct Wordpress blog, see author's "about me" page); and a non-independent brochure which is found at Internet Archive. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion initiation here and participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 28 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: [14][15][16][17][18][19] (Primary, non independent source), [20][21][22][23][24][25]. 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]
Comment - AnonymousScholar49 is correct, that there exist some good sources that someone could add to the article, e.g. US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Insurance Journal are legit. As for this being a non-profit, I don't know about that. It is described as "a U.S. insurance rating and data collection bureau specializing in workers' compensation. Operating with a not-for-profit philosophy and owned by its member insurers...". I'm not sure why this is important but merely responding to Anon.--FeralOink (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY, I’ve cleaned up the article and added WP:RS sources from the U.S. Department of Labor, Reuters, and Insurance Journal (2). Promotional and unsourced content has been removed or, where appropriate, clearly tagged. The article now meets WP:THREE and satisfies notability under WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist, hoping to have additional discussion for whether keep/delete or other to have a clear consenus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These keep votes are from new users where there's obviously some offsite discussion to bring users here. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 28 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

Proposed deletions