Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Snyder


 * 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure).  Graymornings (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Snyder

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability is not inherited. Being the ex-wife of a notable person is not itself notability. The article now makes an assertion of further notability - see my comment below.  Graymornings (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete. I'm not convinced that being the spouse of a notable person is a claim of significance; I nearly speedy-deleted the article under criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Divorce. Erm, I mean delete. Notability is not inherited, so it stands to reason that it is not marital property either.Firestorm (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Changing that to weak keep. The article now asserts notability, for a better reason than being the ex-wife of someone notable. Still not entirely convinced that she absolutely deserves an article, but i'll give her a chance per the new evidence. Firestorm (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. This is just sad. Actress is obviously notable. Just by checking "what links here," could see that she had major role on US soap opera, appeared in Broadway run of Tony-nominated play, and had won notable acting award. Appeared on Broadway in premiers of plays by notable playwrights Lanford Wilson and Jules Feiffer. What happened here? Easy to see. New editor wrote first two sentences of very useful article, then was hit over and over with templates until he quit the project. Nobody commenting here checked anything out. Shame. Shame. Shame. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. At least half of that due diligence is on the part of the article creator. If the assertion of notability is not clear in the article, we're not under any obligation to shake all the bushes before deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The original article didn't even have an assertion of notability - I'm surprised it wasn't speedied. The new version of the article now goes beyond her status as the ex-wife of a notable person, so I'll give it a weak keep now that it's at least verifiable. Let's keep this discussion open, though, in case other editors have anything to add.  Graymornings (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The award is verifiable by an article in The New York Times. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article now makes a claim of significance (the Derwent Award) and backs it up with reliable sources. Notability is demonstrated in the article and verifiability is achieved. The revisions made since my last !vote turned the article into a keeper. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 22 January 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.