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


 * 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)

Invalid links
^ Prairie Law article Lawyer Ads Get Loud by Jeff Williams accessed August 1, 2006--does not link to anything ^ Legal Ethics Resources on the Web (prepared by Brad Wendel Associate Professor of Law at Cornell University School of Law) accessed August 1, 2006 --does not go to any article

Sources Do not stand for what they are cited
This is one section heading, presumably included as a way to justify Shapiro's notability:

Used to illustrate legal ethics and the need to reform
Here are two sources used to support this premise: 1.  Brandweek, Sept 6, 1999, Designated shopper by Laura Shanahan A Wiki editor claims Shapiro was Laura Shanahan's "example number one of the need to reform legal ethics..  (hence fitting within this section and justifying Shapiro's notability). Shanahan did not say or imply that.  ''It was "tacky times" and not lax legal ethics or self-regulation that Shanahan credits for the tacky ads and "tummy-turning phenomena".

This article does not in any way, shape or form hold up Shapiro to illustrate the need for legal ethics reform. It isn't even an article about legal ethics or ethics reform! It is an aritcle about tacky advertising of all stripes and "tummy-turning phenomena", that are not even necessarily law-related!''
 * This is what Laura Shanahan actually says in the article:

"In the beginning, doctors and lawyers were barred from advertising. And we saw that it was good. Nonetheless, the ban was years ago lifted, unleashing a tidal wave of ever tackier pitches across the board. Not to assert strict cause-and-effect here--i.e., ads did not take a turn for the tacky simply because doctors and lawyers began advertising--rather, tacky times spawn all sorts of tummy-turning phenomena. (Two words: Joey Buttafuoco. Two more: Monica Lewinksy. Two wait, I'm having a Maalox moment.)'" 2.  Motor of May 2002 by Lypen article "Editor's report"   (removed) "'Are asbestos-related lawsuits a symptom of greedy lawyers and our society's jackpot mentality, or a just cause for innocent victims?... It's tempting to regard the situation at least partly as a sham when you look at a website like www.MillionDollarLungs.com, where attorney Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro proclaims, 'I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you..but I can make them pay!' and encourages visitors to his site to spread the word because 'mesothelioma and asbestos injuries could mean million dollar lungs for you or a friend!' '[14]"BUT the author of this cited source continues, "Problem is, behind the aggressive legal tactics and the statistics are people-real people who have a legitimate concern for their wellbeing and who believe they have been deceived and mistreated. For decades, many workers weren't given the proper protection or warning of the suspected hazards of asbestos. However, whatever misconduct and misinformation there may have been, the sad reality is that it can't be undone. To treat this matter simply with statistics and anecdotes is dehumanizing and unfair to the men and women who have suffered. But there are estimated to be 18 million Americans alive today who have undergone some level of occupational exposure to asbestos. And to think that there are millions of dollars available to compensate each of these millions of people is simply unrealistic" AND ...concludes, "Some will argue that it's an appropriate punishment for companies that turned a blind eye to the well-being of the people who built and serviced their products. Others will say we're on the verge of sitting back and letting a handful of greed-barons destabilize our country's economic base for no just cause. As with most things, the truth can be found somewhere in the middle." (Since my father died of mesothelioma, an asbestos caused cancer of the lining of the lung, I know how dehumanizing this kind of treatment is. The quandry is what to do.  For an accurate discussion of the real issues on this subject, see Asbestos and the law.) The Motor article does not claim that there is a need for legal ethics reform, and certainly does not focus on Shapiro, except as an anecdote. To cite this article for the proposition of "Legal Ethics and the need to reform" is dishonest (or a misunderstanding, which distorts WP:AGF to something unrecognizable). 3.   The Canadian Medical Association Journal Litigation online  --Medical Associations are lobbies. I haven't seen one yet that doesn't disparage lawyers. Life would be grand if only people would recognize how perfect doctors are and never sue them. Anyone that does is just a scumball. Oh and of course, all suits are frivolous. This is not an article on legal ethics. It is a whine about lawyers. This source suffers from WP:RS deficiencies. If this illustrates anything, it is the animosity between doctors and lawyers. (I can assure you that lawyers don't get warm and fuzzies around doctors either)
 * Here, the editor claims that Motor "illustrates" a legal sham, with Shapiro is "example number one". Not the case.
 * "Illustrating a legal sham" implies there was a legal sham. The Wikipedia editor evidently concludes this, but the aritcle he quotes does not.
 * Where does this article discuss Shaprio as "example number one illustrating a legal sham" supporting the need for reform of legal ethics? It doesn't.
 * How does this article relate to legal ethics or the need to reform? It doesn't.

Summary
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 close to an attack article, and not a disingenuous attempt to invent notability for a non-notable subject.

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

A relisting of Alleged sources

 * 1)  What new rule did NY adopt as a result of Shapiro?
 * 2) What other states adopted a new rule as a result of SHpairo?
 * 3) What articles are there below that are about Shaprio
 * 4) 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) new-ny-bar-rules-restrict-attorney-advertising.html Legal Broadcast Network article New NY Bar Rules Restrict Attorney Advertising] from The Buffalo News in Buffalo NY published June 18, 2006 accessed August 1, 2006   The Legal Ethics Resources on the Web (prepared by Brad Wendel Associate Professor of Law at Cornell University School of Law) gives Jim "the Hammer" Shapiro top billing under the subheading "Appalling Lawyer Ads". The Canadian Medical Association Journal's Litigation online by Michael OReilly from April 4, 2000 introduces his topic using Shapiro as example number one of what not to allow in Canada: "If Canadians are lucky, they will never walk as far down the litigation trail as their American neighbours. However, the Internet is helping to spread the American gospel of victimization, and numerous sites are now available that publicize lawyers who specialize in targeting physicians. Many American lawyers now have cyber practices and some certainly catch visitors' attention. The Shapiro and Shapiro site - www.shapiroshapiro.com - is home to Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro. This firm actively seeks medical malpractice cases with slogans such as 'Sue the Bastards' and 'I may be an S.O.B., but I am your S.O.B.' " In Motor of May 2002, Shapiro is example number one illustrating a legal sham: "Are asbestos-related lawsuits a symptom of greedy lawyers and our society's jackpot mentality, or a just cause for innocent victims? [...] It's tempting to regard the situation at least partly as a sham when you look at a website like www.MillionDollarLungs.com, where attorney Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro proclaims, 'I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you..but I can make them pay!' and encourages visitors to his site to spread the word because 'mesothelioma and asbestos injuries could mean million dollar lungs for you or a friend!' " In Brandweek, Sept 6, 1999, Designated shopper by Laura Shanahan used Shapiro as example number one: "In the beginning, doctors and lawyers were barred from advertising. And we saw that it was good. Nonetheless, the ban was years ago lifted, unleashing a tidal wave of ever tackier pitches across the board. [...] 'Hurt?' yelled personal-injury lawyer Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro in a one-second TV spot that gained him national media attention. 'Victim?' he asked in another micro-ad, as a fist crashed through glass." Prairie Law article Lawyer Ads Get Loud by Jeff Williams introduces the need for legal ad reform with Shapiro as a negative example: "Once the province of late-night TV, manic lawyer ads have now spread to the Web. 'I'm Jim The Hammer Shapiro,' proclaims this New York attorney’s site. 'I get money for seriously injured people … from imbeciles who hurt innocent people … I want to get YOU the biggest, fattest cash award I can, as fast as I can, from as many defendants as I can find. Just call me! Day or night, I'll talk to you free.' The approach works. 'We’ve been getting incredible responses and inquiries from all over the world,' says his secretary. But are these types of ads going too far — inflating the lawyer’s success, or promising easy money for dubious claims? Aren’t there rules about this? Just how far can lawyers go?"

None of the supposed sources above make the claims that WAS is using them for. Why is this a source?
 * 1) Findlaw cannot be used as a source - it only is a listing of phone number, address and name.
 * 1) Overlawyered is not allowed in other articles because it is a political site
 * 2) The other mostly local articles are not even ABOUT Shapiro!  Shapiro is at best metnioned peripherally in one sentence in one example.  Jance 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From Project page
advertising. The Legal Ethics Resources on the Web (prepared by Brad Wendel Associate Professor of Law at Cornell University School of Law) gives Jim "the Hammer" Shapiro top billing under the subheading "Appalling Lawyer Ads". The Canadian Medical Association Journal's Litigation online by Michael OReilly from April 4, 2000 introduces his topic using Shapiro as example number one of what not to allow in Canada: "If Canadians are lucky, they will never walk as far down the litigation trail as their American neighbours. However, the Internet is helping to spread the American gospel of victimization, and numerous sites are now available that publicize lawyers who specialize in targeting physicians. Many American lawyers now have cyber practices and some certainly catch visitors' attention. The Shapiro and Shapiro site - www.shapiroshapiro.com - is home to Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro. This firm actively seeks medical malpractice cases with slogans such as 'Sue the Bastards' and 'I may be an S.O.B., but I am your S.O.B.' " In Motor of May 2002, Shapiro is example number one illustrating a legal sham: "Are asbestos-related lawsuits a symptom of greedy lawyers and our society's jackpot mentality, or a just cause for innocent victims? [...] It's tempting to regard the situation at least partly as a sham when you look at a website like www.MillionDollarLungs.com, where attorney Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro proclaims, 'I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you..but I can make them pay!' and encourages visitors to his site to spread the word because 'mesothelioma and asbestos injuries could mean million dollar lungs for you or a friend!' " In Brandweek, Sept 6, 1999, Designated shopper by Laura Shanahan used Shapiro as example number one: "In the beginning, doctors and lawyers were barred from advertising. And we saw that it was good. Nonetheless, the ban was years ago lifted, unleashing a tidal wave of ever tackier pitches across the board. [...] 'Hurt?' yelled personal-injury lawyer Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro in a one-second TV spot that gained him national media attention. 'Victim?' he asked in another micro-ad, as a fist crashed through glass." Prairie Law article Lawyer Ads Get Loud by Jeff Williams introduces the need for legal ad reform with Shapiro as a negative example: "Once the province of late-night TV, manic lawyer ads have now spread to the Web. 'I'm Jim The Hammer Shapiro,' proclaims this New York attorney’s site. 'I get money for seriously injured people … from imbeciles who hurt innocent people … I want to get YOU the biggest, fattest cash award I can, as fast as I can, from as many defendants as I can find. Just call me! Day or night, I'll talk to you free.' The approach works. 'We’ve been getting incredible responses and inquiries from all over the world,' says his secretary. But are these types of ads going too far — inflating the lawyer’s success, or promising easy money for dubious claims? Aren’t there rules about this? Just how far can lawyers go?" Prairie Law article Lawyer Ads Get Loud by Jeff Williams accessed August 1, 2006

MORE
new-ny-bar-rules-restrict-attorney-advertising.html Legal Broadcast Network article New NY Bar Rules Restrict Attorney Advertising] from The Buffalo News in Buffalo NY published June 18, 2006 accessed August 1, 2006   The Legal Ethics Resources on the Web (prepared by Brad Wendel Associate Professor of Law at Cornell University School of Law) gives Jim "the Hammer" Shapiro top billing under the subheading "Appalling Lawyer Ads". The Canadian Medical Association Journal's Litigation online by Michael OReilly from April 4, 2000 introduces his topic using Shapiro as example number one of what not to allow in Canada: "If Canadians are lucky, they will never walk as far down the litigation trail as their American neighbours. However, the Internet is helping to spread the American gospel of victimization, and numerous sites are now available that publicize lawyers who specialize in targeting physicians. Many American lawyers now have cyber practices and some certainly catch visitors' attention. The Shapiro and Shapiro site - www.shapiroshapiro.com - is home to Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro. This firm actively seeks medical malpractice cases with slogans such as 'Sue the Bastards' and 'I may be an S.O.B., but I am your S.O.B.' " In Motor of May 2002, Shapiro is example number one illustrating a legal sham: "Are asbestos-related lawsuits a symptom of greedy lawyers and our society's jackpot mentality, or a just cause for innocent victims? [...] It's tempting to regard the situation at least partly as a sham when you look at a website like www.MillionDollarLungs.com, where attorney Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro proclaims, 'I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you..but I can make them pay!' and encourages visitors to his site to spread the word because 'mesothelioma and asbestos injuries could mean million dollar lungs for you or a friend!' " In Brandweek, Sept 6, 1999, Designated shopper by Laura Shanahan used Shapiro as example number one: "In the beginning, doctors and lawyers were barred from advertising. And we saw that it was good. Nonetheless, the ban was years ago lifted, unleashing a tidal wave of ever tackier pitches across the board. [...] 'Hurt?' yelled personal-injury lawyer Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro in a one-second TV spot that gained him national media attention. 'Victim?' he asked in another micro-ad, as a fist crashed through glass." Prairie Law article Lawyer Ads Get Loud by Jeff Williams introduces the need for legal ad reform with Shapiro as a negative example: "Once the province of late-night TV, manic lawyer ads have now spread to the Web. 'I'm Jim The Hammer Shapiro,' proclaims this New York attorney’s site. 'I get money for seriously injured people … from imbeciles who hurt innocent people … I want to get YOU the biggest, fattest cash award I can, as fast as I can, from as many defendants as I can find. Just call me! Day or night, I'll talk to you free.' The approach works. 'We’ve been getting incredible responses and inquiries from all over the world,' says his secretary. But are these types of ads going too far — inflating the lawyer’s success, or promising easy money for dubious claims? Aren’t there rules about this? Just how far can lawyers go?" WAS 4.250 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * More evidence - The article New York weighs tough new lawyer advertising rules from Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City),  Nov 2, 2006  by Dick Dahl begins with "Standing before images of fiery explosions or computer- animated car crashes, the wild-eyed Jim Shapiro would jab his hands into the air and assure viewers that he would scorch the earth in his pursuit of wrongdoers. "I cannot rip the hearts out of those who hurt you; I cannot hand you their severed heads," he said in one commercial. "But I can hunt them down and settle the score." He ended his commercials with a further promise: "You call. I hammer." Shapiro's commercials are no more - he was hit with a $1.9 million malpractice judgment by a jury that determined he never actually tried cases but left all the work to paralegals. But they're an example of the kind of advertising that prompted four presiding justices of New York's appellate courts to propose new disciplinary rules designed to discourage any future Jim Shapiros." from  WAS 4.250 13:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

>>Findlaw address probably not a good resource Hopefully this can be blanked at some point. James J. Shapiro, P.A., Inc. Address:	16th Floor 1600 Chase Tower Rochester, NY 14604-1908 Phone:	(716) 546-7777 Fax:	(716) 262-6361 E-mail:	 Contact Us

Other resources that do not work:
 * 1) Overlawyered is not a reliable resoiurce - it was not allowed on other articles
 * 2)  The remainder of the sources are mostly local in the Rochester area AND
 * 3) All but evidently this one above only peripherally mention Shapiro
 * 4) All the others do notdescribe what WAS insists is a 'need for legal ethics reform and
 * 5) do not show changes in the law!

=
Copied from project page:
 * Thank you. I did not know such a tag existed.   I do believe "not notable" and "lack of reliable sources" reference WP policy.  And, I do not think one or two national news stories that peripherally mention the subject are sufficient to call him "notable."  I dont believe that is the standard in WP, is it?Jance 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is more than "one or two national news stories that peripherally mention the subject". However, I still feel his case for notability is, at best, borderline. If it's kept, I think the slabs of quotes either need to be removed or they need to be balanced out. Sarah 00:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The totally disputed tag reads "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." I don't think it meets the case here--the notability of the subject is what is being disputed. DGG 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the disputed tag after Dhartung suggested it. The disputed tag is also pertinent to this article - the article stated that Shapiro was used as an illustration of "legal ethics and the need to reform" and in fact, that was not the case.  The articles were not even about Shapiro (as I have stated) and only used one of his ads as a peripheral example, and not an example of legal ethics or the need to reform legal ethics.  I am still a relatively new WIkipedia editor, and am not well-versed with all of the tags etc .  However, I do know that this lawyer is not notable, and I do know that no national publications used him as an example for any need to reform legal ethics, and I do know that "Overlawyered" is a political website and has not been deemed a WP:RS in other Wiki articles.  Beyond that, I am surely open to help and guidance re efficient processes of Wikipedia.  Thank you.Jance 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DGG, that was a response to Jance, who wrote I don't know what WP tag can be used for complete misrepresentation of sources (is there one?). In fact I was pointing out that the content dispute issues are peripheral to an argument for deletion. WP:BLP hamstrings us somewhat as the OFFICE policy has been to stubify problem articles, and an attack page certainly fits. But that only applies if the article is to be kept, and I haven't seen strong arguments on that point either way. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dhartung. I do believe that I presented strong arguments for deleting this article--eg lack of notability, lack of reliable resources to support anything about this individual,  etc.  If this person is 'notable', then the bar is very very low.   Dhartung is correct about the undue weight & thanks for the tip on the tag to use -  WP:NPOV.  The problem is that only by giving a single sentence re Shapiro extraordinarily undue weight, could the author make any kind of argument for notability.  I have changed the article a little, to demonstrate this (for those who don't want to read the sources).  None of the articles is actually about Shapiro, nor does any mention Shapiro in more than one sentence.  The website for Shapiro in the article is defunct.   The original article was speedy deleted as an attack page.  It was resurrected, after someone scrambled to piece together references - to sources that do not support the claims made.   And the subject is a licensed lawyer and this article is still very close to an attack page - saved only by the hard work of an administrator who now thinks the article should be deleted for lack of notability.  The article was originally created because someone thought it was "funny", which hardly meets WP:BIO.Jance 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article should be deleted and salted.  The objection was not only to the later version.  Tyrenius helped WAS find "references" to save the original article, that was deleted and salted.  I believe he helped WAS create the "new" article to get around the salting.  If I am wrong, I apologize.  I do not think Tyrenius is unbiased, here.
 * The article does not meet WP:BIO, and the subject is not notable. The objection is not to any one issue, but to any article on this individual.  I may take this to 'OFFICE' if it is not deleted.  I would like to ask whether those who think it should be "kept" would agree if this were about anyone other than a lawyer.  The sole purpose of this article is to disparage one lawyer, and by extension (as was obvious, all lawyers.  If this is acceptable, then any professional in any area who has ever been disciplined by his profession is worthy of a Wikipedia artilce.  That's incredible.   Jance 00:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comments on me are a personal attack and a violation of AGF. You are already wearing the community's patience thin for this very reason. Furthermore this attack is extended to anyone in the community who disagrees with you. It is obvious from your conduct that your own profession as a lawyer creates a conflict of interest and I suggest you recuse yourself in order to leave evaluation to those who have an objective view of the subject. Tyrenius 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I said if it was not true, I would surely apologize.  I was stating a fact.  I think your comments are personal attacks.  And to say that because I am a lawyer I am unable to edit an article about a lawyer or criticize one, shows your hostilitiy towards me and lack of objectivity here.  Again, if I said anything that is not true, please tell me and I will immediately apologize.  And I would like an apology from you for conflict of interest in your assumption that I will not neutrally critique this or any other article. I would also like an apology from you for needlessly bringing up any past "misdeed" you claim I did.Jance 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I will recuse myself on this article when you do. I daresay you have every bit as much a conflict of interest based on my past experience with you. Jance 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Shapiro had a much wider profile through national TV ads. Tyrenius 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. You don't think that a doctor who lost her license in several states has not had attention?  In fact, I don't see a Washington Post article about Shapiro.  There is one about this doctor.  There are no articles about Shapiro in any major US paper.  None.   Jance 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think the doctor should have an article, then you should write one. This article is referenced from reliable sources. The Washington Post isn't the yardstick. Shapiro is known widely enough to be highlighted in a Cornell University School of Law guide (under "New! Appalling Lawyer Ads") and even the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Tyrenius 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post is one of the oldest newspapers in the United States and is one of the three top newspapers in the United States. A medical association is a lobbying group for doctors.  The Cornell lawschool is specific to law and legal issues.  Now which do you really think, objectively, is a more reliable resource on this issue???  Washington Post Jance 02:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Chewbacca. Tyrenius 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that makes no sense here. I was responding to your comment, that claimed WAPO is somehow less of a "yardstick" than a medical lobbying group in an article about doctors, or a lawshool in an article about a lawyer.  As they say res ipsa loquitur
 * My comment didn't make that claim. Tyrenius 02:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you implied it  And, I did write an article on a doctor written up by the WA Post.Jance 02:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. It was a medical lobbying group that had a disparaging statement about the lawyer.  A medical lobbying group is, a fortiori, less noteworthy than WAPO. Guess Wikipedia doesn't do latin.  Here,   Jance 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you inferred it. The yardstick is WP:V and WP:RS. Tyrenius 02:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And based on WP:V and WP:RS, on the issue of notability of a lawyer, WAPO is far better than either source you raised.  And no, I did not infer anything.  I directly responded to your implication.Jance 03:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Infer. Stop the red herrings please. Tyrenius 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Shaprio's mention on the Cornell University page is at all significant given the link was listed by a student. And the Candadian Medical Association Journal only mentions him in passing as one of five examples of lawyers or groups who specialise in medical malpractice. Shapiro gets two sentences in the whole article! Sarah 03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Cornell page was by Brad Wendel, Associate Professor of Law, and CMAJ mentions him briefly but prominently. It's not even used in the Shapiro article anyway, but it's worth pointing out. Tyrenius 03:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. This is not worth pointing out for the very reasons I mentioned - several times (and which I won't repeat).  The problem is that this individual is not notable for any significant change in ethics rules, and none outside of his local area, and that is debatable.  My problem was (and still is) that this article was clearly written to disparage this attorney.  It was recreated for the very same reason - bypassing a SALT.  Then the original article (name?) was unsalted, and here we are again.  Tyrenius said that I should not participate in any discussion of this issue because I am a lawyer.  That seems very odd, since a lawyer would even have a better understanding of what is noteworthy about legal ethics, and lawyers.    Yes, it is surely true that I don't appreciate gratuitous disparagement of any lawyer (and that is often used as an excuse to disparage the legal profession, which I believe is what this is about) Evidently, my nominating this article for deletion again is upsetting.  Well, I find this article upsetting.  Jance 03:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lay off the accusations: Sarah is not going to post an attack article. The original speedy delete in the middle of the AfD was controversial. You have stated that you think editors on wikipedia are systemically out to attack lawyers. Tyrenius 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Cornell listing was compilled by Brad Wendel, yes, but it says on the page that the "Appalling Lawyer Ads" section was provided by his students ("The links in this section feature some of the most egregious examples of tacky advertising, submitted by my professional responsibility students."). Sarah 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sarah. That is the point.  This seems like a real stretch, once you look at what the sources are and what the purpose of the article clearly is.  There is really nothing here about legal ethics, and the attempt to make it that failed miserably because there simply are not sources that support it.  If an attorney uniquely illustrated any type of ethical problem, or if he had any significant impact on legal ethics, at least one of the major newspapers in the US  would have discussed it (Eg The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal etc).  Even if it were only on page 10.  That is not the case here.  The problem with this article is that it does look like (1) either a vendetta against this lawyer or (2) a more generalized attack on lawyers.  The original author did say in the first AfD that he only wrote it because he thought it was "funny".  And I have no idea why one or two here are so ferociously defending its inclusion.Jance 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Submitted by students to him and then used by him on a page he has prepared and endorsed as stated at the top of it, which  gives a reliable source for Shapiro being of note for his adverts, as stated in the article's lead section. The argument that this article was valid because it illustrated an ethical problem was one made by WAS to support his version of the article. That version has now been reverted back to Sarah's version, which is not based on that argument, but merely on the argument that he has some degree of notability (albeit minor) as an individual, hence meriting a biographical article. I disagree that "Sarah's version" is a personal vendetta or a generalised attack. It is a referenced NPOV delineation of a public figure. The original author is irrelevant: we are not dealing with his version. Please try to leave out the rhetorical smokescreen. Please do not keep on repeating the same thing: you've made your point about the Washington Post. Please do not undermine those editors who disagree with you by using pejorative language, such as "ferociously". Unless you can prove otherwise (with the endorsement of third parties), please AGF that other editors have the best interests of wikipedia in mind. Tyrenius 09:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. A barely notable Canadian political pundit whose article dealt almost entirely with the fact that she was involved in an allegedly false sexual harassment complaint while a college student, and more recently plead no contest to a charge of stalking a former boyfriend.  Everything had proper sources; arbcom still slapped down the editors of the article (both admins, BTW) and instructed them to use a conservative interpretation of BLP rather than the liberal one they had been using.  The evidence and workshop pages have been blanked for some reason but the histories are still there.  I think the fact that Shapiro is mentioned by a Canadian malpractice lobbying group and a Cornell lawschool class on bad lawyers (plus the case was covered at the blog overlawyered.com as I recall) indicates some notariety in a limited way in a limited field, but not enough to overcome the presumption under BLP and the Marsden case that biographies will not be hatchet jobs.  I see nothing in the article to indicate his ads were seen "nationwide" as claimed above (just NY and FL), and nothing in the article to indicate that his behavior resulted in changes in laws or ethics rules as claimed above, just that he has had his license removed. No one of consequence 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. I may do arbcomm - admins should not be immune to Wikipedia policy and rules, and it is good to see that they were not there.  It is obvious that if this lawyer had made any significant impact, at least one of the major US papers would have reported it.  I agree that there is some limited notoriety but not enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, and surely not enough to overcome BLP.   Despite Sarah's attempt to salvage this article by rewriting it (a huge improvement), there is no valid reason to have it at all.   Not even the best writer could make it anything other than a hatchet job, because that is all there is to work with.Jance 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Gordian knot?
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. Durova Charge! 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)