Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th 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 again.

Those advocating deletion refer extensively to WP:BLP1E, a policy, noting that the subject is (although extensively) covered only in relation to the shooting. The replies of those wanting to keep include that the subject is no longer a living person subject to WP:BLP and that the one event rule is of the "should" rather than the "must" variety, allowing for latitude. Since both camps are of roughly equal size and employ defensible policy arguments, this is essentially an editorial decision, on which we have no consensus. May I suggest that AfD no. 5 be deferred until something happens that is very likely to change that outcome? Sandstein 21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Closure Endorsed at Deletion Review.--Chaser - T 02:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There have been three deletion discussions and two reviews. The reason I bring up the debate again is that we've never gotten to a final consensus point, that is, of "keep". I and others assert this article was created out of the emotion of the moment and has been, despite months of time, unable to justify its existence with the present article information. In other words, all information available herein is nothing that couldn't be listed on the VTech victims page.

As mentioned, the only result (beyond the first AfD's result of "delete", which was overturned without (unfortunately) explanation) we've gotten has been "no consensus" -- this is another attempt at achieving just that.[[In other words, this is an attempt at achieving consensus.--Pablosecca 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)]] I hope anyone who accuses me or others of abuse of process recognizes that fact. I do not propose to review this endlessly until the result I want is achieved, but instead until we can get to a decision based on consensus, either "delete" or "keep" -- some of us view "no consensus" as something of a non-decision.

This might be debated more below, and has in the past, but the reasons for not keeping the article, or rather, briefly summarizing what is here in the victims' section, are in a nutshell

• (1) that this woman, god rest her, was before the tragedy not notable, and her (involuntary) involvement in the same conferred upon her no special notability. Compare with Prof Granata and one or two others, who were in life notable due to their achievements. Therefore, the coverage Ms Couture-Nowak received was solely by virtue of her participation, and totally incidental to it.

• (2) By far the most persistent contention on the part of those who wish to keep this article has been that, since Couture-Nowak has been the subject of multiple independent articles, such proves her notability. I suggests that such a contention follows the letter of the law, and not the spirit. One need only look to the actual content of said articles -- again, they are really just extended coverage of the VTech massacre, in that they attempt to flesh out the incident and the characters in the drama, namely the victims. The only question here is, Was this woman notable in and of herself and her achievements? Remember WP:COMMON -- and forget knee-jerk reactions.

As a final note, let me state that too many administrators view AfDs (and other debates based on consensus) as being little more that vote-gathering sessions, despite policy clearly stating the contrary. Too many people, in assessing these debates, use the quick and dirty method of scanning the boldface words on the left, rather than thinking hard about (1) what is really policy and (2) what is really common sense. Many show up here, make their vote in a sentence or word, then vanish. This kind of technique I believe can really harpoon a debate, and lead to a kind of fake "no consensus". I hope we can get an administrator who has a sufficient mastery of policy such that he may address this issue with articulateness and on well-cited grounds, or at least bother to leave an opinion rather than just a one-word decision.
Thank you for your time, Pablosecca 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; no disrespect intended, but her notability is as a victim of the massacre and there's no need for a lengthy article. Propaniac 12:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Propaniac. Pablosecca's case is eloquent and accurate, and frankly, at this rate I'd love to see a WP:BLP1E variant for crime victims all around for whom their only notability comes from fluff wasn't-she-a-swell-fellow? encomiums from the survivors in the ten days immediately following the tragedy, and not thereafter.  RGTraynor  13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, individually she seams notable, probably the rest could be redirected.Callelinea 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre per Propaniac. She does not need her own article, as she was not notable before the shootings. I'd like to point out to the nominator to assume good faith and refrain from stating "too many administrators view AfDs as being little more that vote-gathering sessions". Sounds like you are introducting presumptions upon editors, and your "I don't care what the consensus is, as long as it's either delete or keep isn't exactly true because if that was the case you wouldn't have made the previous statement. Obviously there have been quite a few good discussions for both ways (keep and delete), and more often then not, the longer a discussion gets (usually a lot of both keep and delete recommendations) that it ends up in no consensus because it would not be fair until there is a majority consensus of one way or the other. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Seems to me that there's enough here besides the way she died to keep the article. JulesH 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's just a bio of her life, nothing notable, save for the Va Tech shootings, hence the feasibility of just redirecting. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The person has been the primary subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The topic became notable due to the shootings. Just because some users don't like the reason she became notable doesn't suddenly make her non-notable. "The world" decides if someone is notable, not Wikipedia editors. There's too much topic-specific content here to be redirected to the already long List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Oakshade 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Did you read my comments above? Specifically, point number (2)? Pablosecca 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Yes and it's not convincing. And the "letter of the law" comment is non-sensical as Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not "laws." --Oakshade 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  All the more reason to not hold to the guidelines when it goes against common sense. A disclaimer from the WP:N page:"[WP:N] is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The acid test: was she notable before the incident took place? The answer is surely no.Pablosecca 18:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Was Yuri Gagarin notable before he flew in space? Your argument suggests that it is impossible for a person to be notable because of one single incident, which is clearly not the case. JulesH 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oakshade, your argument fails WP:NOTINHERITED. —gorgan_almighty 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOTINHERITED applies to articles that are not the primary subject of secondary reliable sources as this topic is. --Oakshade 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It is "non-sensical" only if one is inclined to play semantics games, a syndrome all too common on Wikipedia (where someone actually voted Oppose on a RfAr on the sole strength of the candidate using the word "vote" in connection with the process, which is solely determined by a consensus vote of the participants). Plainly the text of Wikipedia policies and guidelines bear much weight, as evidenced by continuous parsing in debates, and the very nature of XfD sways back and forth between the strict and the loose constructionists. The mere fact that WP:IGNORE is a fundamental, official policy of Wikipedia should spell out the concern. That aside, of course Wikipedia editors decide whether a subject is notable or not; to date, Wikipedia editors measure articles under AfD review for notability based on standards written, amended and interpreted by Wikipedia editors, as opposed to outside bodies or groups.  RGTraynor  17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break

• Redirect to List of Victims. This is a clear-cut example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS (and yes, BLP applies to the recently deceased). Every single source used in this article was written after her death. Period. There is nothing to establish that she was notable before becoming a victim, as harsh as that sounds. Again, this is a clear violation of our policies. If you don't like that, change the policies, but redirect in the meantime. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not only is WP:BLP primarily about living people (this person tragically died last April), that policy is about verification and NPOV, not about notability. WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO are what applies when discussing notability. --Oakshade 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong. Read the BDJ arbitration case -- BLP is about the recently deceased as well. WP:NOT and WP:BLP trump WP:N and WP:BIO in this case and in every similar case, and this is a clear violation of both. While BLP is not used in establishing notability, it is used in deletion of BLP-violating articles, of which this is one. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong. You admit yourself that WP:BLP is not about notability. And to quote from WP:BLP1E "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This person is in no way "low profile." The articles primarily about this person are about her life and work OUTSIDE of the massacre. To say "Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was the subject of newspaper articles, therefore is in violation of WP:BLP" is just farcical WikiLawyering. --Oakshade 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you understand the BLP policy or the concept of WikiLawyering. Remember: when a person gains notability for an event, as demanded by BLP, cover the event, not the person. If you took some time to step back and examine the matter, you would see that the subject was not notable before the events that took place. Just look at the ref list. She became semi-notable (also covered by BLP) after her death because of the massacre. That is a clear violation of BLP and has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLawyering. The fact that you're ignoring both the spirit of BLP and Wikipedia and focusing only on what is written in WP:N is much more symptomatic of WikiLawyering and downright worrisome. This is an encyclopedia. This is not WikiNews. If you want the news, write for them. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody is claiming she was notable by WP standards before the tragedy. She became notable due to it. And she didn't only become "semi"-notable, but in fact an unfortunate national celebrity. Even Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a speech about her in Parliament [1]. That story is about her, not the event. The CBC story [2] and many others are about her. She became notable because of the event and all of these were written about her because of it, but that doesn't change he fact she became very notable. --Oakshade 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• You just proved the point that this article falls under WP:BLP1E and that it should be removed immediately. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• The proof is that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. --Oakshade 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please just read the Bdj ArbCom decision -- BLP does not only apply to living people. Furthermore, just read the statement taken directly from BLP: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. That is EXACTLY what this article is. I'm sorry if you fail to understand this, but it's WP policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• The multiple reliable sources are EXACTLY primarily about her, not "only in the context of" the massacres but of her life, work, the creation of a prominent Francophone school, etc.. Your WikiLawyering attempt to stretch the meaning of WP:BLP just isn't working. --Oakshade 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• The sources were written because of her death and because of the massacre, which makes it absolutely, 100% in the context of the massacre. You can't spin it any other way. This has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLawyering, and your repeated, unsupported accusations just show that you're grasping for straws. This has to do with the spirit of the rules, especially BLP. There is no stretching of any meaning of BLP -- this situation is exactly what BLP1E was created for. I'm arguing spirit, you're arguing literal text. Which is WikiLawyering? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to talk about the "spirit" of the rules, you are totally missunderstanding the purpose of WP:BLP and why it was created - so it doesn't adversely affect peoples lives, not to mention to ensure Wikipedia doesn't get sued. I'll quote the entire "In a Nutshell" section "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." There is nothing that violates the privacy of this person, not only in the letter of it, but in "the spirit" of it. Your WIkiLawyering is painstakingly attempting to apply a cherrypicked subclause of a policy that IN SPIRIT is meant to ensure accuracy and verifiability of an article. You might not have noticed, but WP:BLP1E is in the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section. IN SPRIT, it is meant ensure the privacy of someone who's privacy should be respected. That is exactly what WP:BLP1E was written for (read the WP:BLP discussion history if you don't believe me). When the Prime Minister of Canada makes a speech in Parliament specifically about a person and national newpapers and networks write articles primarily about her, privacy concerns are completely moot. This isn't a WP:BLP issue, by the letter or "in spirit." --Oakshade 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think if you took a look at the slew of recent deletions you might say otherwise. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rockstar's point is very simple, Oakshade. Her biography has no encyclopedia value outside of the context of the event. There is no way to argue against WP:BLP1E.Pablosecca 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BLP1E applies specifically to people who are "essentially low profile." This person is in no way "low profile." --Oakshade 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Of course she is low profile. We wouldn't be having this debate if she weren't. She was in life, and her death does not change such a fact. The articles that arose subsequent to her death were largely biographical data, recycled wire copy -- and the real problem is that the only reason she was chosen by the regional newspapers was because of her background. For instance, in Guatemala, there were news stories about the Guatamalan victims of 9/11 -- that's now regional papers make their butter, by stories with a "regional focus". But it's too willy-nilly to confer notability when the subject is per se not notable. As I said before, this debate is getting a little nationalist -- I think many are defending this entry because it has to do with a French Canadian. Pablosecca 08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Being the primary subject of multiple national (not "regional" as you so claimed) secondary sources is not at all low profile. And not covering notable subjects outside United States, whether they be notable in Canada or Guatemala, is exactly the purpose of the WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Oakshade 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is precisely the problem I'm trying to get across. Oakshade, you fail to get past the face of the guidelines and cling too strongly to the technical meaning without pausing to reflect on the intention behind those guidelines. WP:NN notes that the rule in a nutshell is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." But that's just the nutshell, Oakshade, and we have to think rationally about why this entry exists at all, which is because and only because of the VTech massacre.Pablosecca 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• This person most certainly passes the "intention" of our guidelines more than hundreds (if not thousands) of article topics as being someone who unfortunately became very notable. --Oakshade 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Give an example. Jeffrey Miller is only notable for his death also, but it's a very different case. Pablosecca 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• J.D. Tippit and Ronald Goldman are examples. BRMo 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• I meant the hundreds or thousands of articles that have much less secondary coverage about the topic, not specifically victims of crimes. But BRMo brings up good examples of those. --Oakshade 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Those are not good examples. Both were the only (or one of the two) victims of famous murders, not one of dozens in a sudden spree. For instance, Tippit, his part is noteworthy because he fits within the grand scheme of the topic of the Kennedy assassination. By the way, Oakshade, I believe Stephen Harper mentioned Couture-Nowak in passing, and didn't give a whole speech about her. This is the best I can gather from some light research. Do you know?Pablosecca 00:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• let's not start trying to rank victims' notability by the number of people killed at one time. let's look at each individual person. As to the question about Harper, here's links to what was said on the day...
  PM interrupted QP briefly, Dion's statement, moment of silence,
  Bloc Quebecois links it to gun registry. Pretty standard condolence stuff, admittedly. I do think that Dion and Harper, spoke more at length in the press about her role in the Francophone community but I think that has now turned into a dead link. Or it may have been in French. Canuckle 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes the sheer number of victims confers notability. This may be distasteful, but it's true. The Kent State victim (one of several) is surely notable, not because of anything he did but because of his death and subsequent (involuntary) participation in a very famous photo. That's just how it works; fewer (even involuntary) participants in a major event, more focus they'll receive; more notability. The fact that the victim here in question was picked out from the dozens dead, picked out by regional newspapers because of her background, rather than her accomplishments, does not confer notability. I think this whole debate is getting a little nationalistic, with people defending this entry as if though they're defending French Canadian pride or something. Finally keep in mind, for comparison, that the entry describing the school Ms Couture Nowak founded, that entry was deleted as non-notable.Pablosecca 08:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- by the way, let me state that I think redirect is the most logical of the solutions. I don't think that was clear from my into above. Thanks, Pablosecca 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I appreciate that nom is trying to "obtain" consensus on whether to delete or not, but the last AfD noted that AfDs are a poor way of "building" consensus for contested articles. Would be nice to see some progress on the article's Talk page. (There was some efforts made by nom and others). Her fame and notability may only have occurred after her death, but that's not an acceptable argument. You'd knock off Vincent Van Gogh (I think) or Victoria Cross winners recognized post-humously. We may not think much of the 'created a school' claim, but notable people such as the Prime Minister thought it a notable accomplishment and their validation was widely covered in reliable sources. I can see why she's contentious as I think she just clears the bar of notability, but she does clear it. Canuckle 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I added a reference that gives an idea how notable Canadian media thought she was: a column by CBC News Editor-in-Chief Tony Burman - A story of victims and issues, not only the killer - that asks whether she, Liviu Librescu, the group of victims or the killer will become the "iconic image that will forever recall the massacre at Virginia Tech". She may not have become the iconic image outside of Nova Scotia, but this is evidence that some distinctions were drawn between her and the group of victims. Canuckle 18:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, you are just further proving that she was not notable before the fact. I hope you realize that this is an article about her AFTER the massacre. Was anything written about her BEFORE the massacre?? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• As I described above, that doesn't matter as it's possible for your notable achievements to go unrecognized during your lifetime. In fact, many of the best biographies are written after someone has died and there are many examples of people's accomplishments being re-evaluated and accepted after their death. There has been a good breadth of coverage. You may argue it's not deep but as Wikipedia:Notability (people) it is deeper than "a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form" and she has demonstrable wide name recognition within Canada, particularly with Francophones.Canuckle 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep wp:common and notable. if it passes 3 times in short order, wait a year or two before you nominate again. -- Buridan 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: While I too disagree with the frequency, nom does argue that previous AfDs did not "pass" (consensus to keep) -- rather they failed to obtain consensus. Canuckle 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• that is the same in my book. If you do not reach consensus to delete, it is a defacto keep, it passed, if you can't do that the first time or the fourth time, you will end up with the same thing this time. this one should be viewed as a continuation of the last no consensus at best.--Buridan 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Inertia is a terrible way to build an encyclopedia. And let's not forget that one of the three completed AfDs ended in "Delete", while none have yet ended in "Keep". Pablosecca 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• And that lone Delete result was overturned.Canuckle 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• without inertia, there would be no wikipedia..... Inclusion of encyclopedic content is the key. Did she do something that could end up in an encyclopedia? yes, did she do something that was notable in her life? yes. --Buridan 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• To Pablosecca: Inertia is a terrific way to build an encyclopedia. Inertia is: "The tendency of an object at rest to remain at rest, and of an object in motion to remain in motion". WP is definitely in motion. Sometimes, the motion is in endless circles seeking consensus by AfD but usually it's forward. Canuckle 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Buridan: what precisely, pray, did she do that was notable, and could end up in an encyclopedia? Also, pray, what would waiting two years accomplish? Also, see WP:NOTAGAIN. Canuckle: I don't want to get faux-scientific with you; let me just say that to equate no consensus with an endorsement is misguided. If an article, including this one, can stand on its own merits, let it be judged keep. If not, delete. Accepting these "no consensus" decisions is a toxic misadventure, one that stifles debate and discourse. Pablosecca 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Founding a school is notable and could end up in an encyclopedia of the history of education of canada. surely wikipedia will eventually encapsulate that history in its totality, no? isn't that the goal of wikipedia to hold the sum of knowledge? --Buridan 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• User:Pablosecca Go as "faux-scientific" with me as much as you want. I did not equate no consensus with endorsement. In fact, I responded to Buridan to support you in saying that no consensus was reached. But we should also be cautious about citing a Delete decision that was overturned on review for lack of consensus Canuckle 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• The delete result is not controlling, but I bring it up whenever I detect the attitude that reasons that since there has as yet been no consensus, keep is appropriate. I think it's called WP:NOTAGAIN. People, listen: it's been months; the article still has no information that justifies an existence outside of the main Vtech article or Vtech victims page. That's it!Pablosecca 08:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to list of victims. Clearly fails WP:PROF and only is in the newspapers as one of many victims in a massacre. We do not have memorial articles. No sources to show she was notable other for being in the wrong place at the wrong time for a few horrible minutes. Cover the event, not the victims. Edison 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per WP:NOT#NEWS - She was only notable for one incident, with no "historic notability" as WP:NOT requires. Corpx 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#NEWS doens't apply. That one event she unfortunately became notable for is extremely "historic" and being the only Canadian in the massacre sadly placed her in Canadian history. --Oakshade 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• The event is historically notable and should be mentioned, not each individual victim Corpx 01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd arbitrary section break

• Keep perfectly verifiable article. - SimonP 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The question of verifiability is not pertinent to this debate. Pablosecca 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

sure it is. it is best to not delete well verified articles, as eventually as wikipedia grows, other articles will tie into this one and they will mutually strengthen each other. if this was unverified, i'd have said delete.--Buridan 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an article's inclusion. There are many verifiable things which don't merit inclusion in Wikipedia (for example, every article in every community newspaper). Mindmatrix 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that this article is unverified: that's why its not pertinent to the debate. Pablosecca 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to meet this guy who says everything mentioned in every community newspaper should have an article. Deletionists are always kicking the straw out of him, and I kinda feel bad for him. Everyking 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Aside from being an art instructor and having been one of about three dozen people shot and killed during the VT massacre a few months back, she's really not that notable - but certainly should get a mention in the aforementioned article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have held back on voicing my opinion in previous reviews, but ultimately feel that she was the subject of numerous articles here in Canada and became quite notable. In the end, I feel that it was more than just extended coverage of the massacre. And although I believe that the nominator acted good faith, I firmly believe that this is one nomination too many, and that at a certain point, the lack of consensus should be accepted as a keep because there is clearly no consensus to delete. Skeezix1000 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This biography clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites a number of reliable, national news sources. Notability is not a personal "achievement"; it is a recognition that enough information on the subject has been published in reliable secondary sources to support an encyclopedia article. BRMo 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to the List of victims... page. Are we gonna have an article for every victim? of every massacre? GoodDay 23:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ones that have multiple secondary sources written primarily about them, yes. --Oakshade 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. She is not notable independent of being a victim, and the best place for her obituary is List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Resolute 00:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 30 references over the year. Major news services,major newspapers. That is what notability is about. In previous deletion discussions, there was great emphasis on the fact that all the references were right after the event, even though it seemed obvious to most of us that it would continue to be notable. And so it has proven. DGG (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Having references is only step one. Read WP:BLP1E.Pablosecca 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, the topic is not "essentially low profile" and WP:BLP1E is about privacy of private citizens, not notability.--Oakshade 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• If BLP did apply because it includes "recently deceased" people, then how long is recent? 6 months, 12 months, 2 years plus a day? Name a subjective time period and an editor could recreate this bio after it. Then we would face becoming a recreation of the Pythonesque Dead Parrot sketch -- "She's not dead, she's recently deceased." That doesn't appear to be common sense or a desirable result.Canuckle 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• If WP:BLP1E did apply, it does advise against separate bios for most (but not all) cases because of concerns for: (1) undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, (2) redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and (3) cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. There appears room for exceptions, like this bio. NPOV hasn't been raised. The server maintenance of this start-class article is small. There may be redundancy concerns with the description of her activities during the attack. That can be resolved with a main-article link in the appropriate section. Undue weight should be considered, but the content seems very well sourced and does not appear to me to overstate her role in the attack. In fact, her bio is the only place on WP that describes the Canadian and Francophone (and Polish?!) reaction to her death, and the fact that massive, massive media coverage plus validation from notable sources that she made contributions to Francophone society (whether I believe it or not - the claims were made and quite widely). I did consider the 'cover the event argument' while cleaning up the article. I'd like to hear an argument from that POV that Canadian reaction to Virginia Tech massacre be created. If this was done, virtually all the present biographical content would still be on Wikipedia then. Plus even more Canadiana material could be added about the media coverage, the Bloc Quebecois gun registry response, etc.

• Keep -- per arguments in the 2nd AfD: many independent sources covered her life with more than trivial coverage. The shooter was also not notable before the event: it's our ability to write a deep, well-documented article that is a primary consideration. The article is not an obituary, it's a biography. Mindmatrix said above the verifiability is "necessary, but not sufficient, for an article's inclusion. There are many verifiable things which don't merit inclusion in Wikipedia (for example, every article in every community newspaper)." Was she only covered in local community newspapers? No. National news sources dedicated pages to her biography. Thus Mind's second criterion is also fulfilled. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again, see WP:BLP1E.Pablosecca 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, the topic is not "essentially low profile" and WP:BLP1E is about privacy of private citizens, not notability. --Oakshade 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, what part of biography of LIVING persons is relevant here? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom rules that BLP1E applies to the recently deceased.Pablosecca 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom ruled that WP:BLP (not specifically BLP1E) applied to a very specific case which did not change WP:BLP at all. There have been proposals to change WP:BLP to inculded recenetly deceased and every one has been shot down. WP:BLP does not anywhere in it say it applies to deceased people. --Oakshade 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can you cite what you say?Pablosecca 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Don't know exactly what you're referring to. If you mean does WP:BLP say anywhere that it also applies to recently deseased people, then just read it and you won't find it. The most recent discussions about adding such a clause, and in turn rejected, are here and here.--Oakshade 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and block anybody who nominates this again over at least the next year. Everyking 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, one event biography. --Eyrian 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Redirect - I was considering closing this as all keep arguments are essentially the same thing, and are all shut down by WP:BLP1E, but this was nommed a day ago so I'll give it time. Anyway, as stated in WP:BLP1E, there is nothing notable about this person except the Vtech event. 1 event. Ring any bells? I dunno, it reminds me of WP:BLP1E...All the new sources concern the EVENT, not the PERSON, thus this person is only notable as a participant of the EVENT. Therefore, the article should be redirected to the EVENT that asserts their notability, not as an individual, but as someone who took part in an EVENT. Giggy _U^CP 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• This whole affair has been an unfortunate confluence of emotion and legalism. And indeed, the crystal-ballism of previous debates, during which it was argued that "with time" the article would become notable, has been proved wrong. I hope we can find admins who respect consensus, but refuse to take into account essentially incorrect rationales.Pablosecca 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• with time... means 5-10 years, not an afd each month for those 60-120 months, please keep some perspective, as knowledge and notability change over time.--Buridan 09:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• By this reasoning, all 3000+ people who died in the WTC collapse would be notable. While its sad, I just dont agree with it either Corpx 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Every 9/11 victim that meets the notability requirements should have an article; the same goes for victims of anything, including school shootings. In fact, it goes for everything in the entire universe—if it meets the notability requirements, we keep it. And anybody who tries to apply BLP to dead people should just be ignored. Soon we've have deletionists citing BLP to delete articles on small towns, obscure insects, and far-off moons. It just boggles the mind. We have a policy, and it's pretty simple, yet it has to be continually twisted so that it can be used more extensively, and the encyclopedia can be that much smaller. Everyking 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BLP1E applies only to "essentially low profile" living persons. This person is in no way "low profile". --Oakshade 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per above, or delete. In reality, Wikipedia isn't a memorial. GreenJoe 05:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia isn't a memorial clause is for those topics that aren't the subject of multiple secondary sources, ie not somebody's grandpa. --Oakshade 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect as above per WP:NOT. Keeping this is an obvious circumvention of WP policy and yet another example of news being conflated with notability. Eusebeus 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's so obvious, why isn't it written down anywhere? Everyking 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP The previous discussions that this individual would likely be consdidered as notable at least in Canada. She became the subject of an article upon her death, which is a logical time to consider writing an article. Her involvment at Virginia Tech is another sidelight, but if she had been hit by a truck, she still meets the basic criteria for inclusion. I would also agree with the concept of their being a time limit for repeated AFD nominations. cmacd 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, she is notable for her achievements during her life and also for her death. --musicpvm 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• What achievements during her life made her notable? Corpx 04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Truro school answers that question pretty nicely, funnily enough. Bearcat 05:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to straighten some points out I think we're tending toward legalism again here, and losing sight of what's best for Wikipedia. Arbcom here could not approve a statement affirming that BLP applies only to the living. While WP:BLP1E pithily formulates an opposition to creating entries for people notable for only one event, it does so partly under the rubric of privacy, which is why it's throwing some people off. But BLP1E echoes what is clearly in WP:BIO, which states that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The argument I'm trying to get across, as are others, is that the coverage Ms Couture Nowak received was essentially trivial and incidental -- totally under the aegis of the events at VTech. There was no reason to single her out except in the rush to get any kind of copy about the story, to think of new angles to cover the story. Emily Jane Hilscher, for instance, one of the first victims, has several articles "about" her -- for instance -- but of course they're really about the VTech story, about fleshing out the characters in the drama as it were. Also, can anyone seriously argue that WP:PROF applies here?--Pablosecca 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BIO makes is very clear that "trivial coverage" refers to "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." The coverage of this person is extensive and deep and nothing at all resembling WP:BIO's definition of "trivial." --Oakshade 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's trivial, because it only has need in the context of the VTech massacre.Pablosecca 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• It is not trivial, it was only a matter of time before there was enough documentation to support her notability. That the VT event happened, just made scholarship and reporting act faster than it would have. She was notable to a large community before the event, she was more noted after the event. However, that she is notable for her work in education in a large community is not disputed anywhere above and really, it can't be disputed because there is no counter evidence to 'is notable' as that would just add notability.--Buridan 19:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• She got a degree, taught, and founded a school - that's essentially her biography. Not notable! Besides common sense, evidence supports that: for instance the article that had to do with the school she founded was eliminated in an AfD. As for "only matter of time arguments", being not psychic myself, I cannot comprehend such things. Pablosecca 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Founding a school is notable, especially where and when she did it. That the school was deleted is probably part of systematic bias against francophone canada on english wikipedia, I suspect that page will come back sometime in the future. I can't know that, but we'll see. --Buridan 22:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Here we go again with the nationalism. Leave that be. As for the school notability, it depends on the school. I've founded a school too, here in NY, for actors -- it's really small, but you don't hear me clamoring for notability because I know that you have to work to become historically important, which is the criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Finally, let me assert that an article, any article, has to demonstrate notability the moment it is created, even if it's a stub-article. If in the future some heretofore hidden revelation that Ms Couture Nowak did something of a historical scale in her biography comes to light, the article will be rightfully recreated. Pablosecca 01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• no, we are going with systematic bias, and we pointed it out. in any case, if you review the comments, there is no consensus to delete, in fact, the consensus seems to be keep or keep as redirect. if there is consensus how do you think it should be interpretted? --Buridan 01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• So you like the Britannica standard of notability. This is Wikipedia. Everyking 05:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect. And systemic bias my foot. As for the "consensus" to keep, I don't know what AfD you're looking at. This is not a vote -- opinions with fundamentally wrong rationales, or one-liner comments, should be discounted. Everyking: I don't know what you mean by "Britannica" vs "Wikipedia" standards. Pablosecca 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• actually.... opinions that vociferously argue that they are correct and all other positions are against wikipedia policy in one way oe 18 others should be discounted. one liners are great, they establish consensus. arguers who extensively post against one liners, should be ignored because they are clearly pushing a point of view. that to me seems much more in the spirit of wikipedia than ignoring one liners.--Buridan 10:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd arbitrary section break

• Delete or Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. On the strengths of the article (and it's references) in their present form, there is nothing to assert notability other than the shooting (which fails WP:BLP1E - "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"). It's theoretically possible that this person is notable enough for inclusion without being particularly well known (per WP:NPF), but no assertion of that notability is made in either the article or any of it's references.

This person is an academic, therefore the criteria of WP:PROF must be applied to assess notability:

1. "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
2. "The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
3. "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work..." - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
4. "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
5. "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
6. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.

It any of the 6 points above do apply to this person, and if properly cited assertion of that fact is made in the article, then I would change my view to Keep.

—gorgan_almighty 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the post. It's been discussed that the more general WP:NOT apply, particularly demonstrable name recognition. A notability claim is contributing to Francophone community: as per..."Chris d'Entremont, Minister of Acadian Affairs. "She has made a great contribution to the francophone community, particularly with the development of École acadienne in Truro" from a current reference. This claim, although short, was extremely widespread in her ethnic community, in her province and nationally. There are no end to media references that can be supplied. Canuckle 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• The person is not notable for being an academic alone. WP:BIO and WP:N is what applies and this person easily passes those. Incorrectly applying a guideline like WP:PROF and then arguing against it is a classic red herring argument. --Oakshade 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting Oakshade: Indeed, caveat 3 of WP:PROF specifically points out that academics can be notable for other things than being academics. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hate to sound like a re-hash, their are at least two and probaly Three significant "events" in this persons life. any of which could justify a """KEEP""" (not a vote, I already voted to keep above) Founding an school, for french speaking students where their was none before means that it was creating a class of schools in the province. That one act, which is well documented by independent secondary sources SHOULD be enough to earn this person a place in an encyclopedia. The fact that she was a victum of "yet another" american shooting does not diminish that event. She is not being evaluated on the body of her academic work. that may or may not be significant, but she is firstly known for the efforts in french language education. When you are appling a test, you must look at the peson overall. She is not for example being cited as an Sport figure so the sports related tests are not relavant. Some people have one major defining moment, or achevement others make a lot of small contributions, it seems in this case we are discusing someone who is a poly-contibutor to society.cmacd 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Several of you are saying that this person is "clearly notable" under the criteria in WP:BIO and WP:N. I'm not looking for a fight here, and I will gladly embrace that argument if it is true, but saying that she is "clearly notable" under those criteria does not automatically make it true. Please could someone explain to me exactly what criteria in WP:BIO and WP:N applies to this person, and for what reason. I'm trying to be very precise here because some of us have two particular concerns about this article. On there own these are not reasons for deletion, but they give us strong reason to suspect the implied notability of this person. My concerns are:

1. The article, in it's present form, still reads like a memorial.
2. All of the references provided were written after the subject's death, and are arguably written as memorials to the subject.

It has been suggested that this person is notable for founding the École acadienne de Truro, but not all schools are notable, and nothing in this article asserts the notability of this particular school. If the notability of the school can be asserted (and properly cited) in this article, then that would go a long way towards asserting the notability of this individual. Secondary source references about this person from before here death wouldn't hurt, either.

—gorgan_almighty 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

the 'before her death' bit does not follow. facts about a person's life come out when they come out. this person's life had a significant event that caused many people to research and make note of her accomplishments. that it happened after the death does not mean the death caused it, as it is likely that those facts would have come to light over time in any case. people focussing on this as related to the virginia tech massacre and death are precisely missing the point of notability, which is that it does not matter when the facts of notability come to be documented, just that the facts are documented, cited and verified. the conjunction in this case... the facts coming to light upon her death, is not the cause of the facts.--Buridan 17:46, 30 July 2007 (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.