Talk:Jim Shapiro (attorney)

message: The original article as written was lacking in sources and noteability and was an attack page. As a result of the deletion discussion, the article improved in all these respects to the point that at the time of deletion it no longer qualified for a speedy delete and the delete was immediately challenged. As a result of that discussion, the article was further improved and added to to the point that it was not even the same article that had been deleted and the new improved version went live (at the article this article now directs to) while the challenge debate was still going on. That challenge debate ended concluding the point was moot and efforts to improve still more the article that went live were in order. I continued improving it as best I could, but another user has in development in her user space and even better article on the same subject that will wind up replacing mine when she is ready for that. (As is discussed on the article talk page as well as her talk page). That's where we stand at the moment. WAS 4.250 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: No, the article as written now is still an attack page.  Now there are a few references that some of you scrambled to get.
What you all did was write (or edit) a Wikipedia article on a scummy lawyer of no real notability to further negative stereotypes of lawyers.
No legitimate encylcopedia would include an article like this. 
No serious editor would have defended the article to the death, trampling on others to get his way.   That's a strong advocacy. 
I don't care about the article now, one way or the other.   It was clear to me that you all sure do.  My question would  be "why"?
Jance 06:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the reason he is important. WAS 4.250 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As the primary author of the version you are talking about, I find your allegations, particularly those about my, as the primary author, motives, bad faith etc, highly offensive. Sarah 15:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry you find it objectionable.  I ask for your help in reviewing this article for notability and accuracy.  My understanding is that you tried to fix what had been a blatant attack page. 
Please consider the following:
**The original reason this Wikipedia article was created was because someone thought the ads & this lawyer "funny".  
** Now that I have again complained about this being an attack article, WAS added a lot of claims about "legal ethics" citing to sources that have little or nothing to do with legal ethics or with Jim Shapiro.  
** Can anyone tell me why this lawyer is notable, using reliable sources and accurately stating what the resources say? 
** How has Shapiro's case changed the law or ethics rules in a fundamental way?   
**In other articles on Wikipedia, "Overlawyered" was vetoed as not WP:RS because it is a very political organization/website.  Why is it allowed here?  Jance 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still is an attack page

message: So what is the reason for keeping an article on this particular lawyer?  It clearly is not for the reasons claimed.  There are several themes here, but none on the need to reform legal ethics.  None focus on Shapiro or even mention Shapiro except in passing,.  
I do not assume WAS, and certainly not Sarah, are idiots.  But readers are likewise not idiots.   Give us a little bit of credit.  This article is an insult.
I reverted it to what Sarah said was her verson.  At least that was more honest.  It was (and is now) only an attack article, and not a disingenuous attempt to invent notability for a non-notable subject. Jance 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: No,the link is a bad link.  And the reference itself is not adequately cited.Jance 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a moot point since the article was reverted.  This is good.  However, the article itself still needs deletion, and as Sarah mentioned, salted.  Jance 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact tag