Deletion of Jim Shapiro (second nomination)

Comment: Shapiro is ''at best'' only borderline notable and I might be inclined to say "weak keep" if WAS would allow it to be a biography, as it should be, and wasn't insisting on shifting it back to an attack page by pasting in long slabs of selective and misleading quotes one after the other from mostly dubious sources. This needs to be deleted under  and re-salted. I might add that it was salted after the last AfD, but 2 days after it was closed (speedily) as an attack page, WAS created what amounted to another attack page masquerading as a bio and posted it at James J. Shapiro to get around the AFD and salting
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I wrote the biographical part of the current version of this article (minus the long section of cribbed-together-quotes on legal ethics and changes to the law) as an attempt at improving what was an absolute mess of an article that pretended to be a bio. In researching the article, |reliable sources were very hard to come by. There are a few articles on Factiva that complain about Shapiro's annoying commercials, a few about his suspension from practice and a few about him donating money to education. But nothing significant and unfortunately, I don't think there is enough verifiable material available to make a case for |notability. Since I wrote the article, that situation does not seem to have changed. Unless someone else feels they can make a verifiable case for notability, I think the article should be deleted as a not notable bio, and preferably salted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: It seems to me that a content dispute (Jance may want to use {{tl|totallydisputed}} ...) that has not been resolved through channels is spilling over into AFD. Shapiro seems to turn up as an example in some national news stories about aggressive legal advertising practices, thin notability indeed, but potential to pass. The major problem seems to be a bunch of original research drawn from case documents that is unsupported by citations and that violates #Undue weight. The nomination is not really drawing on policy but is more of a rant. I believe I'd vote weak keep on notability and insist that the editors solve the content issues |some other way
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:DR)