Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Snow (attorney)


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Snow (attorney)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Marginaly notable living person. If he passes GNG, he does it by a small hair. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge His position is notable and worth including in encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with nom that he is marginally notable. But marginally notable is still notable.  The article cites articles about him in the New York Times, ITWire, and CNet.  It's a close call, but I say keep this one. Snottywong (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to pass notability standards by a reasonable margin. Enough substantial reliable sources to establish significance in my opinion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, enough coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Disclosure: I created this article) Chair of a notable charity suggests he is worthy of inclusion to me.  Majorly  talk  02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - not sure why he is not notable. Raysonho (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2009 (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.