Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca S. Snyder (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. After the requisite time for AfD it is obvious that there is no consensus. Valley2 city ‽ 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca S. Snyder
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The entire article is WP:PRIMARY sources and passing quotes of an attorney who is not the lead counsel on any notable cases. Flunks WP:BIO. A similar article can be written WP:PUFFing tens of thousands of other associates in law firms by using similar primary sources. At best it is a BLP1E that should be redirected to Omar Khadr, who is barely notable himself. THF (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What has changed since the last AfD where consensus found it exceeded the requirements of notability? Chillum  22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The previous AFD decision was simply contrary to Wikipedia notability policies. None of these sources are about Snyder.  They're either by her, or about her client.  If Snyder is notable, so is every associate at her law firm. THF (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline not a policy. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. Chillum  22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and the policy dictates that consensus can change.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes brew, that is why I asked if anything has changed. Chillum  05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change even if nothing else changes. Especially, when the previous afd, for some reason, turned into a runaway inclusionist train with nobody showing how she meets WP:BIO. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't participate in the original AFD. This COATRACK of an article violates guidelines and policies, and is redundant of existing articles. THF (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In an article 10k bytes in size, I see only two quotes by the subject; one could argue that only one is necessary, but I definitely don't understand how one can argue this is just a collection of tertiary quotes. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, lets see what happens this time. I will review the sources later and give an opinion. Chillum  22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  —Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Question -- Nominator asserts Snyder's only claim to notability is her association with a single Guantanamao captive, and wrote: "...should be redirected to Omar Khadr, who is barely notable himself." I always thought those making a nomination for deletion should actually read the article, so their nomination doesn't contain factual errors.  Snyder has helped at least two Guantanamo captives, Khadr and David Hicks -- "the Australian Taliban"., , .    Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article. Having said that -- the assertion that similar articles could be created for tens of thousands of other lawyers -- well, if thousands of other lawyers have received substantive world-wide coverage of their activities, over several years, for several aspects of their activities, then lets have articles on all of them, even if there are thousands.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snyder has had extensive coverage, outside the USA. It is important to remember that the wikipedia is not a solely American project.  I am mystified as to what an assertion of BLP1E means, when the individual has multiple, extensive reports spanning several years.  WRT WP:COATRACK -- it is an interesting essay, but I have found that it is frequently cited by individuals, who, when asked for clarification, can't explain how it applies to the current article.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of years ago a wiseguy made the argument that the article on Tony Blair violated BLP1E, because, after all, no-one would have ever heard of him if he hadn't supported George W. Bush. They suggested the Tony Blair article should be redirected to the George W. Bush article.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying that Snyder has received significant coverage doesn't change the fact that she hasn't, especially when the article's list of references are mostly court documents dressed up as coverage. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Zero independent sources of biographical material about her. The resume at her current employer is not indpendent, and such exists for essentially all lawyers who work for a law firm.  Khadr is adequately covered, nothing merits merging there, or anywhere else.  While the normal solution to a WP:BLP1E problem is to merge, with nothing to merge deletion is the right outcome.  GRBerry 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the same reasons as the 12 people who snowballed "Keep" on the first attempt to delete this biography. The fact the nominator suggests Omar Khadr (307,000 individual Google hits) is also "barely notable" suggests he is either severely lacking in context of these issues - or purposely employing rhetoric to try and have articles deleted. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to point out which one of the 12 keeps rationals are most in tune with WP's policies ? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "absolutely passes WP:N"
 * "coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources."
 * "sources from major newspapers in two countries."
 * "A lot of publicity, many good sources, certainly is a notable lawyer."
 * "adequately referenced and she seems to be moderately notable."
 * "demonstrates notability beyond question"
 * "Notability established and explained and a couple of independent sources provided in article"
 * Take your choice of any of the above, they all seem to be based on WP policy. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * making unsupported matter-of-fact claims that contradict reality is not WP policy. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Her role is more significant than most of these nominated., enough for individual notability. DGG (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I very strongly disagree with that assessment. This is a former associate at a law firm; the Khadr article itself mentions ten attorneys by name without mentioning Snyder once. THF (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This looks like a good article. I don't see the failure of notability, the person is covered. Chillum  03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: covered by what? Miscellaneous 10 U.S.C. §950(g) court filings where she's the number two attorney? (That's footnote 3 by the way: pure WP:PUFF.) Is it really that easy for lawyers to jump over the notability bar, simply by looking up docket sheets? THF (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, coatrack. Part of a very large walled garden of articles which rely on each other for notability. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for many of the reasons already stated, including coatrack. The subject is known for one event, and her case history, which is irrelevant in any case, consists of four entire cases.  In the legal profession, that's the number of cases any decent litigator gets assigned in a month (a slow one at that).  The subject is simply not notable.  I agree that the best course would be to delete this article, and move the sources to Omar Khadr, where her quotes can be utilized in that article in their proper context.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP1E as well as straight WP:BIO -- no significant secondary source articles with Ms. Snyder as the subject. Ray  Talk 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: well referenced article on figure with substantial international coverage. For instance, press reports from the most prominent Canadian papers on her government testimony, her opinion on US and Canadian government policy, clearly passes substantial coverage.  To argue that she is only famous for defending Guantanamo detainees is to ignore her coverage as an expert and actor in this field.  T L Miles (talk) 02:47, 13 March 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.