Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca S. Snyder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (non-admin closure). None of the parties to this discussion disagree that there are multiple sources in independent publications about Rebecca Snyder; the question of her notability hinges on whether those sources are trivial mentions only related to one client, or if, instead, they demonstrate clear, durable notability. A strong consensus is established below that the coverage does in fact add up to notability that exceeds the standards of WP:N. This article is currently not a coatrack for Khadr; despite most of Snyder's notability deriving from this one event, the article is focused on her. Darkspots (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca S. Snyder

Rebecca S. Snyder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Is not notable, per WP:N. Bstone (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. Notability is not inherited. Bstone (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I started this article, about half an hour ago. I am still working on it. Nominator placed a speedy deletion tag on it, four minutes after I started it. I challenged that tag. I want to assume good faith, but I am afraid I really can't reconcile a nomination for deletion so shortly after the article was started with the wikipedia's stated goal of reaching decisions through consensus -- not turning the wikipedia into a battleground. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I do agree here, both in terms of overzealous use of WP:CSD#A7 and also with AfDing articles so very quickly after they are created. ~ mazca talk 14:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, she is a notable lawyer who has taken on one of the most notable legal cases in the past ten years. Notability is certain. Sherurcij (Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Per coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. e.g. this search. Individual is thus notable per WP:N (disclosure - I declined the original speedy by the nom) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the first link technically links to multiple sources - perhaps not my finest piece of external linking Fritzpoll (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep absolutely passes WP:N (added by User:Legotech)
  • Keep Even the incomplete version that was originally tagged as a speedy had sources from major newspapers in two countries. . DGG (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Omar_Khadr Vote changed from keep after doing some fact-checking; this article looks more and more like a WP:Coatrack.Certainly not "one of the most notable legal cases in the past ten years", not even one of the more notable cases on the court's docket that day but she is notable. L0b0t (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC) L0b0t (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Frizpoll. A lot of publicity, many good sources, certainly is a notable lawyer. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. She has not recived signifiant coverge. Any coverage that mentions her, mentions her in passing as part of coverage of Omar Khadr. Notability is not inhereted. Moreover (and consequently) this article looks like a WP:COATRACK for Omar Khadr.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, although the article is short it seems adequately referenced and she seems to be moderately notable. If nothing much more can be added that's notable, though, it may be cleaner to merge it to Omar Khadr. (scratch that last bit, Omar Khadr is long enough as it is. ~ mazca talk 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I'm not impressed with Bstone's CSD tagging. The article is by an established editor, and it demonstrates notability beyond question. --Aude (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    My tagging this non-notable article is at issue, not your personal attitude to me nor your personal attitude to the author of the article. Please keep that in mind when you opine in an AfD. Bstone (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And he is free to offer you constructive criticism, as others in this AfD have, that you acted too hastily and did not assume good faith when an established editor with thousands of edits created a new article. Rather than clean up the article yourself, wait to see the finished product, or ask him to add more references or detail, you immediately jumped to calling for its deletion. Sherurcij (Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but I disagree with Geo Swan's criticism of the nomination. Contributors should start new articles on their own hard drives or user pages and work on them there. Post them to the namespace only when they can survive AfD. Once it was posted, Bstone was entitled to assess it immediately for notability. JamesMLane t c 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And according to WP:N, "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be."--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. No actual deletion rationale. No reasoning as to why article doesn't meet WP:N. --SmashvilleBONK! 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The reasoning, as I understand it, is that there seem to be no references to the subject of the article apart from her connection to a single case for which she is one of the co-counsels. The only references that mention her outside the context of the Khadr case are directories of attorneys (where she can be found alongside all the other lawyers in the U.S.A.). While the Khadr case is certainly worthy of an article, notability is not inherited and it does not follow that one of his attorneys is notable enough to have an article without some notability of her own unconnected to the Khadr case. Another issue facing this article is that it looks like a coatrack for Khadr. Use of POV language like "captive" rather than the actual designation "detainee" or even the vulgate "prisoner"; there was even an unattributed pull quote dropped willy-nilly into the middle section. None of that has any place in an encyclopedia. L0b0t (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The terms "captive" and "prisoner" are both more neutral than the sanitized "detainee" which is a recent invention created for a specific purpose. But again, that's an issue for the talk page, not an AfD. Sherurcij (Because you can't fight terror by spreading fear) 01:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Keep Notable counsel, I too would tend to disagree with critics who say it was nominated for sppedy and AfD to quick.BigDuncTalk 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Can't find any indications that she is not notable, and certainly the nom doesn't elaborate upon anything. Notability established and explained and a couple of independent sources provided in article, so can't support nomination for deletion that doesn't even support itself. --Blechnic (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2008 (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.