Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Jim Shapiro


 * 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: Delete. — Jeff Q (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro
1. Article at best is advertising or a Vanity page. See also Advertisments

2. Article does not meet this Wikiquote Notable standard: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work. It does not have potential to meet this standard and become a proper Wikiquote page.

3. Most likely it was created in support of an article currently up for deletion in Wikipedia due to lack of notability of subject.Dashiell 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add that the main "article", Jim Shapiro has been speedy deleted.Jawesq 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed. Result: delete (8 deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as per request and in conjuction with the speedy delete on wikipedia.Dashiell 02:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Neither the man nor his quotes are notable.   In fact, the article in Wikipedia meets a speedy deletion A6 category, as someone else pointed out.  I suspect this does, as well. Jawesq 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, also per discussion below. Jawesq 00:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears that speedy delete was passed on at Wikipedia. Even if it were not, I don't think Wikiquote's different policies would support a speedy delete here. I support the nom.65.97.18.237 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:BIO does support speedy deletion.Jawesq 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete . Jim Shapiro must not use the Internet to get business, as this ill-sourced attack page has been around for nearly two years. Our article was created only 1 day after the WP article was created, and the second WP edit was made 3 minutes later to add the WQ box link, strongly suggesting that both article creators are the same person. The sole external link provided in the WQ article appears to be a squirrely personal website with no provenance. (I've listed some details about it in the AfD for the WP article.) All in all, this looks like a set of bad-faith editing by someone with an axe to grind. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, per discussion below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm the administrator who deleted the Jim Shapiro article from English Wikipedia.  I agree that it all looks like a hatchet job.  --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Following WP's lead, I've blanked this article as a likely attack page, but following our own practices, I've added a convenient link for review. We could conceivably speedy-delete this, but I'm a bit troubled by the failure to look into an apparently legitimate source for information on this person, a New York Lawyer magazine article titled "Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended" (3 May 2004). However, given the lack of VfD/AfD participation from the original editor, the tide of opinion, and the restricted nature of the source, I suspect we'll end up deleting this article anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good call. It appears that "New York Lawyer" is an attorney's site of some sort ....if you were to look at my state's similar type of website, I daresay you would find attorneys in the Southeast who have been sanctioned, as well.  Not sure that changes the nature of the attack, since even the last 'version' was poorly sourced.  The fact is that you would not find reputable national sources discussing this individual, because he simply isn't that well known.  Therefore, the only possible purpose in creating a Wiki article is to make him well known, and for being an unsavoury lawyer.  Is this an encyclopedia or a gossip rag?  I do take this personally, even though I do not know this individual.  I am sick to death of finding articles like this on Wikipedia, that are poorly sourced lawyer-bashing.  This, however, is the most clear cut abuse of Wikipedia that I have seen, that falls squarly in WP:BIO of what NOT to do.  Jawesq 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The registration process for NYLawyer.com, which looks much like many print publications' website registrations, made me think this was a magazine. I stand corrected by its own words: "New York Lawyer is an online career guide for young lawyers. Backed by the resources and reputation of the 113-year-old New York Law Journal…". I decided to try to resolve this source question to see if there's any reason not to SD this article like WP, but found that its registration process seems to be using an invalid security certificate. My attempts to find a reference to "New York Lawyer" or "nylawyer.com" on the NYLJ website resulted in a number of matches whose excerpts did not include the search term, and whose full content would only be revealed by starting a $300 subscription to NYLJ. As a result, I've changed my mind (see above) — I think there's no reason not to SD this article like WP did. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes!  There are too many TLAs (two and three letter acronyms)!  I have to have Wiki TLA training.  ;-)    I just wish the lawyer bashing in WIkipedia would stop.  Someone said I was treating this as a personal 'crusade'.  WEll, I am an attorney, and I really have a problem with gratuitous lawyer insults.  And this is all that article was about.Jawesq 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, keep deleted. Non-notable person, nothing notable said by or about him. BD2412 T 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I'm not sure that any of our formal policies and/or guidelines would permit speedy deletion of this page at present. &mdash;LrdChaos 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We have an as-yet-unwritten practice, established shortly after an infamous Wikipedia scandal and following their lead (as we often do), of speedy-deleting attack pages against unnotables. (Yet another reason we've got to update our policies.) I'm wavering on using it, though, because (A) blanking the page renders the attack moot, and (B) we now have a deletion review for the WP article. The latter seems exceedingly unlikely to change anything, but one can hardly be blamed for pausing while such a flurry of activity resolves itself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining this, Jeff. I wondered what clarification you were referring to in your discussion.  Iit does seem that there should be SD for attack pages on unnotables, and this should be better clarified in Wikipedia as well.Jawesq 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, Articles, case 6 does cover this, and includes a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information. Our draft policy includes a similar "Attack page" clause, but it is still awaiting final review, discussion, and approval. As far as my "clarification" goes, I'm not sure what you're referring to. (You don't make clear which discussion you're talking about — this one, the WP AfD, or the WP deletion review.) If you mean italicizing of my VfD entry as you cited it in the WP review (and incidental removal of the unmatched "blockquote" end tag), I did that to make it visually clearer that I did not post that edit, so that my subsequent vote didn't look like a second attempt to weigh in on the subject. (Yes, you did say before and after the text that it was copied by you, but visual formatting cues can be very useful to others when reading such a voluminous text as that review entry. Being a lawyer, I suspect you're more adept than most (myself included!) at careful reading of incredibly long texts. &#9786; For many editors, such a detailed discussion tends to discourage participation by folks not already involved in the discussion. (I suspect this is a factor in the unusual absence thus far of most of the regular VfD participants in this one. But I must keep my reputation as Wikiquote's most verbose sysop. &#9786;) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have had no problems with any of your edits. I didn't mean clarification of your edit.  I meant a clarification of what was being proposed for the SD...I found it very interesting that you mentioned this.  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Maybe I just need to leave all of this alone, since I seem to be stumbling.  :-( Jawesq 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. - InvisibleSun 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest now leaving the quotes, since the original deleted article has now been recreated using "James" instead of "Jim" Shapiro, before the deletion review was even completed.  An AFD or speedy delete is apparently meaningless, and not worth the time.  The new "james" Shapiro article in WP is a broader attack on lawyers, and is not specifically an attack on Shapiro, who is used primarily as a bad example.  I suggest that the authors of the Wikiquote and Wikipedia article on Shapiro get the names of their article/quotes (or whatever recreation of those) to link up properly.   I will not participate further, since I am leaving WIkipedia altogether. WIkipedia (I can't speak for here) is probably the worst example of juvenile politics and tabloid 'journalism'  I have ever seen.  I am only surprised there have not been more lawsuits against this group.  The environment is not one in which I have any desire to participate.  Jawesq 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above discussion. ~ UDScott 18:31, 10 August 2006 (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.