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


 * 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 keep. --Coredesat  07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Section justifying "notability" - WP:OR and Misrepresented Sources

''Note to new commentors and closing admin: Significant discussion has been moved to the talk page. I don't know if this is right or wrong, but since this is supposed to be a discussion and not a simple vote, it seems wrong to just shove it onto the talk page without at least a link. No one of consequence 01:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ''

Please read the articles WAS cited in the section "Used to Illustrate Legal Ethics and the Need for Reform" that WAS cited for this section he added to justify "notability". The sourced articles were not "Used to Illustrate Legal Ethics and the Need for Reform"!! Please read the talk page (and the articles cited as sources). This is WP:OR. Jance 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per my nom.Jance 18:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-notable subject. A previous article was speedy deleted as an attack article.  This article was the end result, after an editor attempted to find references, and an administrator tried to help create a useful article.  Unfortunately, this subject is just not notable outside Rochester, and some of his 'colorful' ads.
 * Lack of Reliable sources -- the sources are not "Used to illustrate legal ethics and the need to reform" misrepresents the sources cited. (See talk page to this nom, and to Jim Shapiro). None of the articles the author added supports the claim that Shapiro "illustrates" "legal ethics and the need for reform."  I have outlined this on the talk page of the article.   Quite simply, all of those references only mentioned Shapiro peripherally, if at all.  More importantly, the only individual "using" Shaprio to "illustrate legal ethics and the need to reform" is WAS - certainly not any of the authors of the articles cited as sources.   Therefore, this entire section is WP:OR.   I don't know what WP tag can be used for complete misrepresentation of sources (is there one?).
 * So, ultimately, the only purpose of this article on Jim Shapiro, as the original author admitted, was that it was "funny". Jance 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-sourced by a number of independent reliable newspapers from all over the country.  Obviously has had affect on case law, although perhaps not for the better, but still notable.   I didn't see a "joke" in here nor anything all that "funny".  This is an easy keep. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I only ask that you actually read the articles used as references. They do not stand for what WAS claims they stand for.Jance 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

>>Moved to talk page.Jance 13:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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. Sarah 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep"A few" articles is enough in the way of sources. If is he mentioned in general discussion of legal ethics he is notable.DGG 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It seems to me that a content dispute (Jance may want to use 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 WP:NPOV. 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. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)--Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Shapiro is important as an example of the effects of changes in United States law regarding the advertisement of legal services, resulting in both false and misleading and Crazy Eddie style television commercials by Shapiro that have been used to illustrate issues of legal ethics, the need for the reform of those laws, and pending changes in New York state regulations regarding attorney advertising.
 * Comment: WAS, if that's your goal, to illustrate legal ethics issues and legal reform, then please do this in an article under an appropriate title. To attempt to manipulate a biography on a living person into a dissertation on legal ethics is completely inappropriate. A biography on Jim Shapiro should be a rounded article about him and his life. It shouldn't be primarily about legal ethics with genuine biographical content playing second fiddle. You were told this back in August, but you don't seem to understand. What you are doing, by turning this into an article about ethical issues within the legal profession, but under the title of the name of a real man, is creating an attack article and a violation of WP:BLP. Sarah 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:BLP 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. Sarah 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agreed.  It should be deleted and salted.  Legal Ethics is an article itself, but could be expanded - for the US, and different countries.  Advertising for both doctors and lawyers has changed.  Shapiro was not a very relevant force in this, except possibly the NY bar (and I am not sure about that, based on one article).   If something positive comes out of this, it would be to expand the ethics article.  Advertising - on television and the internet - has been an issue in my state too, but not because of one lawyer. Jance 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim Shapiro and legal ethics has been created. It is not a "biography". See the talk page of WP:BLP for a discussion of the issues related to wikipedia articles named after living people that are not in fact "biographies". Wikipedia articles do not contain original research but instead only noteable sourced facts, thus many are not well rounded and not bios but encyclopedic nonetheless. Making them look like bios, as one editor noted, only makes things worse. Wikipedia definitely does not have all the bugs worked out in this regard. WAS 4.250 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So now you have duplicated your original (and misleading) article and called it something different?  Are you serious?  The sources you cite here and in the duplicate article do not support the content you wrote - whether it is called a WP:BIO or anything else. I admit this is over my head as far as WIkipedia knowledge, so I will appeal to others more experienced.  However, I have to say you are insistent, and it seems clear that your interest is not in a neutral Wikipedia article. Jance 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Jance 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is outrageous. This is a blatant attack; it is a biased, malicious attempt to disparage a living person. It doesn't matter if this new version is strictly a biography or not. BLP clearly states, "These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles." You must abide by BLP regardless of whether it is a biography and using Shapiro as the only example is giving undue weight to the POV you are pushing. You have also violated the terms of the GFDL. Sarah 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Article reverted back to Sarah's version of 16 November 2006 This removes the material that the objections are directed at. There is obviously a consensus that this material should not be in the article. Tyrenius 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of my preceding comment as the subject has minor notability. Tyrenius 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, regardless of content dispute the current version of the article seems sufficiently referenced to qualify for notability. BLP says irrelevant and poorly sourced negative information doesn't belong; it doesn't mean that a guy who's gotten nailed for scamming shouldn't have the truth told about him. [Christ, Jance, could you stop editing for a second so I can get a word in edgewise without a conflict?] Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see.  So anyone of any profession who has ever been caught "scamming" or disciplined by his profession should have a WIkipedia article?  WOW.  I can think of some medical doctors who have lost their license or been disciplined, although that  is the sole reason for their "notability".  According to Night Guy's standards, that would be fine.   Maybe I will do that.   I would also appreciate if profanity was not used, when talking to me. Jance 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If losing your license or being disciplined is a high profile event that gets major media attention, then yeah, I'd say that's notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, shapiro did not receive major media attention. I just "googled" doctor malpractice and came up with Washington Post articles about one doctor, and articles on other doctors, as well.  None of those doctors have articles in Wikipedia (well, one now does).  I hope that something the absurdity of an article on one individual who has been disicplined will eventually get users' attention, but maybe it won't.  And THAT would be a sad commentary.Jance 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per Sarah Ewart. Her point is well-made, and I agree with it. --SunStar Nettalk 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sarah Ewart stated that the article should be deleted and salted.  So a "weak keep" hardly is consistent.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs).
 * Since Sarah made that comment the article has been reverted back to the version she wrote. Tyrenius 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, she would not have said the article should be "salted" had she thought it should be saved, in any version. Maybe we can ask her. Jance 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Smash with hammer I think the case cited against Shapiro (persuaded client to accept less than the insurance company was offering, has never tried a case) needs more awareness in Rochester; no one else should care.  Relatively isolated cases of misconduct don't make one important enough for an encyclopedia.  We had an ER doc here who was caught with child pron on his PC, time for an article about him?  How about the chinese restaurant that was closed for 6 months for health violations?  It was in the newspaper.  How about the financial planner whose mismanagement screwed a bunch of Kodak employees out of their early retirement buyouts?. No one of consequence 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm just about to go back to my (attempted) break and I thought I should clarify my position because I seem to have confused some people. I don't believe the version I wrote is an attack article. I do think that Shapiro's notability is borderline and I find WAS's behaviour offensive. He seems to have an obsession with creating Shapiro attack pages, as evidenced by the various pages he's created in the namespace and his userspace. His attempts to justify it by characterising the article as "named after living [person] but not really [a] biography" is outrageous. This is a biography. There's no other way to define it and even if it's put under a different name, it's still covered by BLP. I am neutral on deleting my version of the article, but WAS's insistence on turning it into an attack page tips me over into the delete side of the debate. If this can be maintained as a general biography, free of WAS's attacks, my !vote is neutral. Otherwise, delete it, salt the earth and let's be done with it. Shapiro's notability isn't worth this much angst and this much arguing. Sarah 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: So is it neutral or delete? The original AfD was WAS's version.  And I am not sure how one can deter anyone from turning it into a more disparaging article...  I honestly don't know why this person is notable except for sleazy ads and that notability is local to his area.  If major newspapers or radio stations picked it up and reported it, then I would say Shapiro is a notable subject.  Otherwise, he is not.  This article may not technically be an attack article per Wiki policy, I don't know.  But it is clear that the original intent was as an attack article, which WAS abundantly demonstrated.  After sanitation, the article is merely disparaging and there are a few actual sources (99% local).  Is that the distinction?  Jance 01:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia has a fairly long article on Cal Worthington, a used car dealer who would be unrecognizable outside the airwaves of Southern California broadcast television.  Regardless of whether Jim Shapiro is notable for other reasons, he's notable for the same reason as Worthington.  There's even an article on Angelyne the local billboard spammer whose billboards became such a regular feature of the SoCal landscape that the billboards got into several films (the billboards but not her - she appeared to have a wealthy patron and a desire to break into the entertainment business).  Electrons are inexpensive.  Cleanup if necessary and keep.  Durova Charge! 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Cal Worthington warrants an "encyclopedia" article, I suppose Shapiro does as well. I do not think either is notable.   But maybe the Wikipedia standard is not, in actuality, what is posted in policy or what is typical of an encyclopedia.  I concede and agree with Sarah - it isn't worth the ugliness.  I still wonder about those who fought like hell to keep a marginal article - and this article is far more disparaging than either article Durova mentioned.  There is no way to make it any better than it is. [User:Jance|Jance]] 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable subject, well-written and well-sourced article. --Guinnog 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.