Deletion of Rebecca S. Snyder

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 wp:coatrack|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSA)

Comment: Per coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources.  e.g. http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&hs=32m&q=Rebecca%20%20Snyder&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn this search.  Individual is thus notable per  (disclosure - I declined the original speedy by the nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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 #wikipedia is not a battleground|turning the wikipedia into a battleground
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:NOT)

Comment: with Omar_Khadr Vote changed from keep after doing some fact-checking; this article looks more and more like a oatrack.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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: No actual deletion rationale. No reasoning as to why article doesn't meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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  for Omar Khadr
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSA||WP:COATRACK)