Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Ciment

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!} 20:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Ciment

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I'm not able to locate significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Many of the sources currently cited are primary sources and there are only very brief mentions of him in the reliable sources with the exception of the NYT article. That however, is about Miami Beach rather than the subject, so I don't think is useful towards meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. A google cse search on a before and a before search of the web and news sites founda fair amount of primary coverage, mayor drumming up business, mayor improving transport links, but all them are primary and I couldn't find a single secondary source. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOL. scope_creep^Talk 19:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am confused here. There is a significant amount of coverage of Norman Ciment in Miami Beach. He was likely the first Orthodox Jewish mayor in the United States. There were numerous articles covering his election and his tenure as Mayor of Miami Beach in addition to his career as a lawyer and real estate investor. Here are a variety of mentions in primary media including the Miami Herald and NY Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/22/us/around-the-nation-mayor-of-miami-beach-is-fearful-of-refugees.html
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article121246018.html
http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/content/FI/14/10/32/79/00001/FI15092802_transcript.pdf
https://therealdeal.com/miami/2017/04/03/deco-capital-and-rwn-pay-7-4m-for-alton-road-retail-building/
https://mdpl.org/archives/2020/12/the-white-house-hotel/
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/the-norman-and-joan-ciment-foundation,656223081/ Jasonciment (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonciment: See WP:42 for a brief summary of what's required or WP:BIO for more. Those don't really help for the following reasons:

Brief coverage providing almost no biographical information
Already cited, some biographical content, but the subject of the article is Grover & Weinstein not Ciment
Primary source
Nothing more than a mention
A brief mention and not a reliable source (at least for establishing notability)
Primary source

SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand, are you as an editor questioning the veracity of the information in his bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Ciment) such that he was the Mayor of Miami Beach, and one of the founding attorneys of the Grover, Ciment law firm? I am just trying to get a handle on what sparked this initiative to delete the Wikipedia profile that has been up there for many years now. I see you talking about technical items suggesting his bio fails a standard. Yet if you do a Google search for his name there are 1,800 entries. There is no other Norman Ciment. The point of the Wikipedia page is to aggregate the relevant info from those 1,800 references right? Jasonciment (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonciment: No not at all, but simply existing isn't sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article and this discussion is to determine whether or not our criteria for inclusion are satisfied or not. The majority of sites that appear on google are not what we term 'reliable sources' so the number of google hits is a poor metric for helping us decide. As to what instigated this, we recently discovered that the account that created the article was manipulating our processes by using multiple accounts to appear as multiple people and was presumably doing this because they were being paid to edit, without disclosing that they were, as required by our Terms of Use. Consequently I have been reviewing their edits to remove problematic content. SmartSE (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what it sounds like to me is you want a list of more "reliable sources" correct? But it seems you want something more because by your comments, even when a source mentions Norman Ciment, the source is not enough on its own merits unless the content meets another criteria. Assuming for the moment that it's just about reliable sources, are these reliable sources? This is just a sampling of sites that are either government websites, books, or newspapers.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Authentically_Orthodox/Q1-lDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article121246018.html
https://docmgmt.miamibeachfl.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=121830&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk&cr=1
https://www.ethics.state.fl.us/Documents/Opinions/82/CEO%2082-007.htm
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/27/nyregion/about-new-york.html
https://files.floridados.gov/media/32345/jewishheritagetrail.pdf
https://www.miamibeachvca.com/core/fileparse.php/1368/urlt/pow-2016-2017.pdf
https://www.jewishpress.com/sections/features/technical-educational-revolution-for-charedim-in-israel/2022/04/11/ Jasonciment (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonciment: Did you read WP:42 that I linked to? Because as explained there we "require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic".

Reliable, but only seems to contain a very brief mention - not significant coverage
Already discussed above
Doesn't load for me, but from the URL looks to be a primary source
Primary source
Already in article and discussed in the nomination
Potentially reliable, but the text isn't searchable so I haven't been able to judge the extent of the coverage
Primary source, literally only contains his name
Probably the best source yet, but I am not sure about whether it is a reliable source or not.

SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://files.floridados.gov/media/32345/jewishheritagetrail.pdf - page 42 lists his name as a Jewish politician.

Are these enough primary sources to validate this listing now or do you need more?

This list was 5 minutes of research. It seems based on the fact that the listing has been up for more than 6 years that it should suffice.

I mean there are enough Editors that they would have flagged this years ago as containing untrue information right? Jasonciment (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

btw maybe I am confusing terms but when you say Primary, is that a good thing or not a good thing. When I see a link from a government website for example, I am not sure of a more reliable source. Jasonciment (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia purposes, a reliable source is one that is independent of the claim it's being cited to support. The thing is, people can claim anything about themselves on their own social networking profiles or staff profiles on the websites of their own employers — for example, it would be entirely possible for me to assert on my Facebook or Twitter page that I won a Nobel Prize. I'd be lying, but that still wouldn't prevent me from being able to say it. So my ability to demand inclusion in Wikipedia as a Nobel Prize winner doesn't hinge on my own self-published claim, it hinges on whether real media have reported that I won the Nobel Prize as a news story or not, thus independently verifying whether the things I said about myself on Facebook were true or not. So reliability doesn't increase based on the source being closer to the subject — it increases based on the source being further away from the subject, representing coverage and analysis in third party sources that are independent of the claims. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC per review of available sources, which are passing mentions, primary, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and there isn't any coverage that suggests any other notability criteria is met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2022 (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.