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

Maritime Executive

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

A non-notable trade publication that fails WP:GNG. All the sourcing in the article is to the publication's own pages, but a WP:BEFORE search shows no qualifying independent WP:SIGCOV of the publication. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Business, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CELFULL

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

Promotional article for a supplement producer that fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is all actual or regurgitated press releases or other non-independent work (such as a journal article that Celfull paid for in part). No independent coverage here that isn't WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, California, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buccaneers–Eagles rivalry

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

Non-notable rivalry of two teams that have only played each other 24 times since 1977. Frankly I've never heard of this even being called a rivalry between these two teams. Draftification was objected to, and seems to be largely based on one article writer's opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry exists. The article clings to a CBS blog that lists this series among the top rivalries of the 2000s. While CBS is certainly a top authority on NFL coverage, this particular blog has only a couple paragraphs of content on this series and does little to describe the teams as “rivals” outside of the title. Even if this was significant coverage of the teams as rivals, which it is not, GNG would still not be met as it requires multiple sources. Frank Anchor 17:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose a merge/redirect to List of NFL rivalries. If this series fails GNG as a rivalry, then it shouldn’t be included on the list of rivalries either. Frank Anchor 03:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete mainly because that CBS article is not very indicative of significant coverage, but this [1] provides a bit more to their early 2000s playoff matches, though I haven't seen any other sources as in-depth as this one. Conyo14 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically every team is a rival with every other team. If all the article can do is outline a history of meet-ups and doesn't describe how the teams and fans actually view the rivalry to give it some substance, there is no reason for an article. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just a random pairing of two NFL teams with no memorable games that I can recall (nor listed in the article) to spark a rivalry. There seem to be some other, equally questionable "rivalries" in the List of NFL rivalries, e.g. Colts–Jaguars rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: There are certainly some questionable rivalry articles. With that said, you'd be unlikely to see a rivalry article between two division opponents deleted. I would however support the nominations of a number of other rivalry articles that aren't about division opponents. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There does actually seem to be some coverage of this, e.g. 'A lot of history' between Bucs and Eagles ("Not too long ago, the Eagles-Buccaneers rivalry was one of the fiercest non-divisional matchups in the NFL"), Tampa Bay looks back to when the rivalry was real, Bucs, Eagles know each other well: Rivalry forms as they've met six times since 1999, Eagles, Buccaneers renew rivalry at new stadium, Tampa Vs. Philadelphia Rivalry Has A Deep History. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my issue is that this is largely predicated on meeting in the playoffs for 3 straight years. That doesn't create a long term rivalry in my opinion, more of a flash in the pan of a rivalry instead. My perspective is that rivalry articles should be more long standing, instead of relying on what amounts primarily to a 3-season stretch that most people have forgotten about. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 - Here's some more 1, 2, 3, 4. KatoKungLee (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at these sources, source 1 appears to be from a SI fan site, #2 is from one of the teams (so not independent), #3 uses language like "used to be a rivalry" (so not anymore), and "will become a rivalry again" (so not right now), #4 is fine but quite local and #5 is similar but places even less of an emphasis of this being a real rivalry. I think a select merge regarding this rivalry at List of NFL rivalries#Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs. Philadelphia Eagles using some of the sources from Beanie and moving it to the historical rivalries of that article is the best outcome as the WP:NRIVALRY isn't met here as a standalone article with a lack of sustained coverage from non-local outlets. Let'srun (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [2] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hyde

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

Article subject is notable only for a single event, and does not meet the criteria set out in WP:NCRIMINAL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Alabama, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Killing three people during a robbery isn't notable, being on death row neither. Coverage is strictly news items of his various incidents. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and the reason NCRIMINAL exists; this man simply is not notable and should not have the glory of their own page. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't define it as glory, especially here. I would say having a page is a negative in most cases. Sure there are some crimes that may be a consideration with, but this is clearly not one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: I created this article thinking it would be notable for a few reasons, 1. His crimes occurred in 2 states, one of which was an attempted murder, had that victim died, he could have had 4 victims killed in separate incidents, some might say that's a serial killer or in this case an "attempted serial killer" 2. case was covered by various news outlets, the Associated Press being the big one as that a national one, also news agencies outside Alabama covered it (Edwardsville Intelligencer: Illinois and Cape Cod Times: Massachusetts) 3. The random location of the crime, I don't recall there being many multiple slayings at Funereal Homes, that stood out to me and I thought that was unique for a triple homicide case. The circumstances of the case overall seemed very unusual. While it may be a stub, a stub can still be notable. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since crime fails WP:NEVENT. Coverage is not in depth enough or over a long enough period of time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @YatesTucker00090

Taksoh17 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marion G. Wells Foundation

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

No reliable secondary sources discussing it, note that Sourcewatch is classified as generally unreliable. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marion G. Wells. I'm not sure she's notable either, but there's a page there that would make sense as an AtD for this topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not finding any sources, but TBH I'm not looking that hard because I'm also not seeing a lot of reason to think sources would exist. Per ProPublica, this foundation has $2.78M in total assets and a revenue of $318k. If this is a 'major' donor to Conservative Partnership Institute ($71.1M and $19.5M) and The Heritage Foundation ($415M and $101M) than I would expect to see some discussion in sources. The sources for the Heritage Foundation are just PDFs which list this among dozens and dozens of similar foundations with no indication of particular significance. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2024 (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