Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Florida

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Florida[edit]

Crocker Cemetery[edit]

Crocker Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cemetery, fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:NGEO. All the sources here are primary source documents or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. (The Sarasota History Alive item is a transcription of a local historical marker that focuses more on the associated church.) The church is arguably notable (and there's a draft at Draft:Crocker Church); any reliably sourced encyclopedic content about the cemetery could be merged there. I would have draftified this page but there's already a draft at Draft:Crocker Cemetery so that's not an option and AfD is the outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: In the same spirit as the nominator, I believe this may be better returned to Draft. It may be susceptible to enhancement there to show and prove notability 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sourcing found by anyone which meets our needs. That sourcing in the article is insufficient. Fails WP:GNG. Might find a home merged into an eventual article in Crocker Church, or could be merged into the current Draft:Crocker Church. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Either this page needs to be deleted or the draft where it would get sent needs to be deleted. Different mechanically but the same general outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftify by merging the existing article into the existing draft. @Htystudent believed that the article had been submitted through AfC for review which is probably the best thing for it and them as a new editor. I see the potential, I found an article about volunteer efforts for the cemetery in the Sarasota Daily Tribune, and I think the differing names have made it harder but certainly not impossible to find sources. Draftify to an eventual keep, hopefully. Kazamzam (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Delete - both the claims of the article and the topic's overall notability, plus (allegedly) notable facts of the article cannot be verified and are under AfD proceedings. Might be merged into an eventual article on Crocker Church, per Timtrent's suggestion above, but the trifecta of articles by the original author are all insufficiently sourced with reliably citations at present. Kazamzam (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kazamzam @Htystudent The article on the church is very likely notable with a focus on the reliable sources. The cemetery is more loosely sourced and I doubt will pass through AFC, but any encyclopedic content here should be included in the church article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cemetery and church have both received notable attention. There have been many articles written about them. If you visit Newsbank or NewspaperArchive you'd see them. However, it does require a subscription. I have cited these articles as sources. I don't really see how that can count against the article if you choose not to purchase the subscription to review them. Although, most public libraries offer these services for free on their public computers. Htystudent (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I am unsure of how this article is up for deletion too as I quite literally submitted it for review and it was published, so it’s likely an issue with the reviewer and not me. I don’t understand how this cemetery is “non notable”. It is a historically designated location. It has to go through a strict process to even be historically designated. Htystudent (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Htystudent Please look at the history tab. This has never been through the AFC process. It appears to have been created by you, moved to Draft by another editor and then the (presumed) redirect overwritten by you later. See the logs
Draft:Crocker Cemetery exists. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only find confirmation of burials there, which is what a cemetery does. Nothing notable about this place, I don't see that it's been listed on the NRHP or local historical register. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have done poor research and have not even bothered to look at the sources. If you couldn't find it why do you think an average person would be able to? That's why this page needs to exist.
    St. John's/Crocker Memorial Cemetery | Sarasota History Alive!
    This is linked directly in the article as a citation. I suggest you obtain better reading comprehension skills. Htystudent (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (the link contains an image, that I do not own, of the historical marker.) You could have even looked up the county's historic register page Sarasota County Historical Markers (arcgis.com) and found it. It's listed under Peter Crocker (since he founded the cemetery) but discusses the cemetery as well. Htystudent (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Htystudent, please be WP:CIVIL. The Sarasota History Alive page lists the text of a historical marker. Under WP:NPLACE, a "buildings . . . may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I think it's fair to say that the ~500 words of a historical marker erected by a local historical society cannot be presumed to constitute "significant in-depth coverage," and that's why we're having this discussion. (Places listed on the National Register are presumed notable; places documented by local historical groups are not and thus editors need to prove their notability using significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources.) @Oaktree b participates in a lot of these debates; I don't agree with his assessment 100% of the time, but he knows how to evaluate sources. Telling him "you have not even bothered to look at the sources" or to "obtain better reading comprehension skills" is not an appropriate way to engage here. @Timtrent is trying to help your work pass muster. I've offered my thoughts above about combining the cemetery content with the church. Your approach today is not a good way to engage with the broader community of volunteers who are working on this encyclopedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When they say " I don't see that it's been listed on the NRHP or local historical register." It is clear that they have not viewed the sources, as the Sarasota History Alive page is the first source listed in the article. Not sure how you can, in good faith, opt for deletion without viewing the sources when the deletion discussion is about the sources. The Sarasota History Alive page is also not just a text. It has a photo, as I mentioned, of the physical historical marker. Htystudent (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, being listed on a local register has no bearing on notability; you need to have WP:SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources and that's what's still missing from this conversation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GONE BUT NOT FORGOTTEN ST. JOHN'S MEMORIAL CEMETERY IS A LITTLE-KNOWN BURIAL GROUND THAT, Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL), October 4, 1998, p1D (newsbank.com)
    1560-word article solely about the cemetery (yes, it's the same cemetery. The name was changed to St. John's Cemetery, but it's still referred to as Crocker Cemtery), will be put in as a citation momentarily.
    There were also various articles published in the pelican press, now the siesta key observer, but there is no way to view those since they are not in the county library's archive. Not sure if you would consider those since you cannot view them. Htystudent (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the NRHP will usually have a 20 page history of the building, which really helps notability. This is a long way form that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wanted to enlighten you to the fact that the Sarasota Historical Society does not have any authority to erect historical markers. Historic Designation can only be granted by the city, county, or federal level (which is a strict process). The Sarasota Historical Society is simply a volunteer organization. Htystudent (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the sources all appear to be paper-based (in the article at present), so I can't look at them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a part of the notability guidelines that paper sources are not allowed to be used? Htystudent (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, they are not all paper based. Like I said, the first source is literally a link. Htystudent (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Htystudent - what @Oaktree b is correctly pointing out is that paper-based sources cannot be verified by other editors which largely defeats the purpose of a source - that it can be used to verify the material it claims to source. If I say I have a paper copy of the Bible that states that Jesus was 7 feet tall and an amazing point guard, but there's no other record of it, it's hardly usable as a source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Many archives have digital material to compliment the paper source and this can be linked to or at least requested to be shared by online readers. Do you see the difference here?
    Also, I'm not sure about the wisdom of pointing out (sorry, "enlightening" us) that the Sarasota Historical Society is a volunteer organization with no authority to erect historical markers or give a historic designation. That makes the third-party notability claim more dubious imho. Kazamzam (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was to bolster the verity of the historical marker, which they were trying to say had no significance. Htystudent (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which they obviously did not know historical markers, at least in Sarasota County, can only be erected by a government organization after they have gone through the strict historic designation process. Htystudent (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how people who do not know much about the subject have final say, especially when I possess a master's level of education (Which is why I'm unsure why I just can't be taken at my word- at my sources really- for the print articles). Maybe my education is too formal, and I apologize for that, but it makes zero sense to me how the only qualification to become an editor on wikipedia is length of time. There is some knowledge of local government and history required to determine the verity and significance of some of these things. Htystudent (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Htystudent - it seems you are confused as to how Wikipedia works. 'Taking someone at their word' is the polar opposite of the notability and verification guidelines for citations. Your credentials, while pertinent to the topic, have no standing here. If it makes "zero sense" to you how Wikipedia policies work, you need to familiarize yourself with those policies that are going to determine the outcome of this AfD and others, rather than stressing the magnanimity of your credentials and that we should all just take your word about multiple, unseen paper sources because of your education. Your belittling tone and condescension towards other editors is not doing you any favours. Kazamzam (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I'm familiar with finding out information about historical items in Sarasota County, I'll provide some sources I found that might give insight:
    [1] Sarasota Herald Tribune has a blurb from their "Slice of Sarasota" but it looks to just restate what the historical marker states (and Sarasota History Alive page)
    [2] I noticed when searching, there used to be a church on the site that was deemed historically significant by Sarasota (never made it to NHRP) - it was moved in 2006; there's an active draft of this article - this makes me wonder if the cemetery should be merged with the church (or in the opposite way as the cemetery would include a church by definition) - a separate discussion
    [3] Article about the church needing repairs, again the Sarasota History Alive page is referenced
    [4] Church is mentioned in passing
    I want to say there's a possibility, but it might require books specific to the history of the area. For the church and cemetery, you would need to look at Manatee County as it existed before Sarasota County was created. The timing would also be when Sarasota was a town. There's also the possibility of merging with what I explained above. – The Grid (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed Peter Crocker is also an active AfD and will be dependent on this AfD discussion. – The Grid (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. There is existing information, through the (relatively recent) restoration of the cemetery. Bill Whetzel, cemetery coordinator, made a big splash between 1998 and 2004 when the cemetery was facing issues (discussed in the issues section of this article) and submitted various press releases to the Pelican Press to make the story public. However, I only have the print copies of these articles. I cannot find them online. Htystudent (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the print copies are referenceable, please use the correct citation template and use them. We may make limited quotations from them using the quote parameter. Note, please that we still require them to be WP:RS and require that they have significant coverage, and are independent of the cemetery. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has been updated with five additional sources that comply with WP:GNG, now making it appropriate for publishing. Htystudent (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I reviewed the additional sources the creator added to the article, and I'm afraid they don't pass the test. Here's my analysis
    Sarasota History Alive: A transcription of a historical marker that mostly focuses on the church and has one paragraph on the cemetery - not WP:SIGCOV.
    Herald Tribune on church restoration: This is entirely about the church and only mentions the cemetery in a single sentence - not SIGCOV.
    Your Observer 1 and 2. This is the same story at two different links. Four paragraphs amid a discussion of other cemeteries - not the in-depth SIGCOV we need.
    Herald Tribune, "Slice of Sarasota". This is a nice piece about the cemetery written as a human interest story. (Literally: "'Slice of Sarasota' is an occasional glimpse of the fascinating life that goes on quietly every day around us, waiting for us to stop and pay attention.") According to our policies at WP:NEWSORG, "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy."
    Herald Tribune, "Gone but Not Forgotten". This I could count as WP:SIGCOV in a reliable, secondary, independent source.
    However, we need multiple sources and I don't see another one that passes the test for me. That's why I've urged including this material with the church article, but as a standalone article my view remains "delete." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added them to note but agreeing to your assessment as I said the same thing above. I think extensive sources exist but it might involve some extensive research beyond this AfD duration. – The Grid (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if I add citations to the 2 print articles of the Pelican Press would you consider those? They are only available in print. Htystudent (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Crocker[edit]

Peter Crocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:BIO. It is difficult with things so long ago. Even so, I am struggling to see what makes this industrious man notable in a Wikipedia sense. He appears to have had a decent, unexceptional life, like so many of his peers. WP:ROTM 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN3 (December 1911) - Burb placed in the paper by his wife and an acquaintance expressing gratitude for kindness shown by others during his sickness and death.
  • FN5 (March 1958) - The region's "Oldest Native" is apparently the daughter of Peter Crocker, and he is briefly mentioned as an Albany native, soldier, and Key West lighthouse tender.
  • FN6 (March 1906) - One mention in the "County Commissioner's Proceedings" as being designated to mark out a road.
  • FN7 (January 1907) - One mention in a list of "other growers" in the region.
  • FN8 (August 1977) Mentioned as introducing coffee beans to the region
All told, this individual seems quite WP:ROTM. He is mentioned in the newspapers, sure, but these mentions are almost all plainly trivial; there is no WP:SIGCOV. AviationFreak💬 01:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The Crockers; Church, cemetery bear family's name - Document - Gale Power Search Htystudent (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The daughter spoke in depth about her father, Peter Crocker, so I don't see how that cannot count. Htystudent (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Dorta[edit]

Rey Dorta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about not notable lawyer. Note- Article was created by the subject. Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Pax[edit]

Penny Pax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and does not approach ENT. The sources provided are basically just awards noise that doesn’t count for anything and there was nothing for google news except some non-GNG counting tabloid fodder suggesting she was paid for sex by a disgraced executive. This was prodded years ago before our standards hardened but this isn’t at the current sourcing expectations Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). Fine. But this actress, having received various awards that still have a page on this Wikipedia (so far, until the cancellation of PORNBIO is cancelled or extended further to the awards themselves, maybe), the page about the recipients might be redirected to the most notable they received. Here obviously, the AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress (mentioned in the lead section). So I !vote for a redirect to AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress#2015–2019, where she is obviously listed. If my !vote is commented with "Oh, but we can't really decide to redirect her article to that page, because she has received various other notable awards that also have a page", I won't reply (but I will smile :D).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A won-an-award-but-independent-rs-coverage-is-nil porn bio. No claim of passing WP:BASIC and insufficient RS support for passing WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Doshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Manish Doshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a WP:PROMO, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion, also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Medical[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Concept Medical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a WP:PROMO Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT. Fails WP:RSP. Sponsored content published at supplements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Renomination reason: sock puppet activity in the prior AfD discussion, also six months have passed since the last AfD. Charlie (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heid[edit]

Alexander Heid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.
Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.
The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.
    The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Deletion[edit]

Check here for any current CfD.

Florida-related Templates for Deletion[edit]

  • None at present

Florida-related Miscellany for Deletion[edit]

  • None at present

Proposed deletions[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Florida&oldid=1234778435"