Deletion of Richard Isaac Fine

Comment: FYI, I've struck out your two !votes above, because you should only !vote once, although you're free to keep adding new comments, of course. Also, that's gotta be the wildest example of  I've ever seen. Special:Contributions/98.233.249.17|98.233.249.17
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: This is a toughish one, because there is some decent coverage of this man, for instance in the California Bar Journal http://www.ca.calsb.org/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/December2007&MONTH=December&YEAR=2007&sCatHtmlTitle=Discipline&sJournalCategory=YES&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2007-12_Discipline_Feature.html&sSubCatHtmlTitle=Feature here and the LA Times, reprinted via the local news, http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/theissues/ktxl-news-issues-judicialbias0607,0,206146.story here.  (Most of the coverage, though, is in spurious and non-reliable sources.)  I think, though, that this is basically a  case:  to the extent he is notable, it is for just one "newsy" event—getting disbarred and chucked in the slammer.  Whatever the merits of his crusade against the local judiciary, he hasn't received any reliable-source coverage for it except in the context of explaining why he was thrown in prison.  I find especially instructive here the concern expressed in BLP1E that "biographies in such cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view."  My understanding of the history of this article is that it has largely been used by a few editors as a vehicle to express solidarity with Fine, to argue for his liberation, and to promote his theories about the L.A. judiciary.  That issue leads me to vote for deletion, especially when I consider that having garnered a handful of news stories would still only make Fine a quite minor figure of local notability anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The offsite |canvassing evidenced above is utterly unacceptable, and taints the AfD in a shameful way. That said, there is some weak evidence of notability, but this requires first the article to be completely pruned of everything coming from questionable sources and BLP1E concerns are to be addressed. Since this can be addressed with editing, the article should be |kept for now (Userfying could be a nice option if BLP concerns are too strong), but for sure the situation has to be dealt with seriously if the meatpuppetry continues. In particular, the article creator must learn that canvassing offsite is the best way to get his article deleted and his account banned. We're not morons
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS||WP:ATD)

Comment: Fails  (barely). The only substantial coverage that Fine has received in reliable, third-party sources was one article in the local section of the LA Times http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/local/me-contempt7 and three articles in the ''Metropolitan News Enterprise'' http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/fine062508.htm http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/fine021209.htm http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/fine030509.htm, a Los Angeles daily newspaper with a circulation of 2,000 covering local legal news http://www.mnc.net/. Like Auntie E., I prefer to err on the side of deletion with BLPs, and the minimal local news coverage is just not enough for me to support keeping it. Special:Contributions/98.233.249.17|98.233.249.17
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)