Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jim Shapiro (second nomination)

message: **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 or an article on a non-notable subject, WAS added a lot of WP:OR 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)

message: I see WAS reverted the article back - that is probably good, since those reviewing the AfD can read the articles WAS cited for themselves.   I ask that editors do read the sources WAS cited for this section WAS added to justify "notability".   Any reader can see that the sourced articles were not  "Used to Illustrate Legal Ethics and the Need for Reform"!!  I have not seen a more blatant misrepresentation of a source on Wikipedia.  Jance 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section justifying "notability" - WP:OR and Misrepresented Sources

message: #  What new rule did NY adopt as a result of Shapiro?
# What other states adopted a new rule as a result of SHpairo?
# What articles are there below that are about Shaprio
# What articles are about a need for legal reform, as a result of Shapiro's actions?
All of this is a long list designed to *look* like references, but they do not support any premise except
(1) This guy was disciplined by a state bar
(2) he probably is sleazy and 
(3) he has a tacky ad.  
Great.  So now we have a Wikipedia article - the rest is WP:OR.
.Jance 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A relisting of Alleged sources

message: I've weighed in with an entirely different basis for keeping the article, linking to two examples of people whose notability is almost entirely related to their local/regional paid advertisements.  Neither of them changed case law, but they seem to be kept on the basis of local iconic status that attracted notice beyond their own paid self-promotion.  I think Jim Shapiro satisfies that standard whether or not his legal troubles had any broader impact than his own career and his clients' interests.  If part of the problem with the article is an OR attempt at stretching the facts to meet another standard, then this should give room to trim out the WP:BLP issues while retaining the remainder. DurovaCharge! 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, Durova. It isn't an OR problem. The problem is an editor who pastes in to the start of the article his own article, which consists of a large slab of negative and disparaging quotes he has collected about Shapiro and sections about ethics and how bad Shapiro is. He then refuses the application of BLP, claiming it's "not really a biography," just an article that's named after a person. When this was rejected, he  violated the GFDL and created a fork. Sarah 10:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordian knot?