Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (5th 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 keep. Mr.Z-man 05:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

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

Simply put, this person has no historical importance and its not encyclopedic. WP:NOT#NEWS (eg: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right.") While she did get some press during the event it was because of the Virginia Tech Massacre and not because of her own merits... that's a crucial distinction, because otherwise every story-of-the-day (and a lot of stories get a lot of coverage everyday) would get an article... we have to decide whether this info deserves to be in an encyclopedia, and I suggest the answer's no. Brokethebank (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Comment BTW I know that it's been up for nom before, but there's no rule against bringing it again if there was no consensus last time -- there's never been a keep decision I think -- just no consensus over and over again... maybe this time we can get some consensus? Brokethebank (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment One other thing (sorry I don't do this often): but I am advocating either Delete or Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Brokethebank (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions.  : -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.  : -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong 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 multiple published works are about her, her life and accomplishments and what she meant to the people she knew and grew up with. WP:NOT#NEWS doens't apply and states very clearly it's intended for people how have "been in the news for a brief period". 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, far beyond the scope of WP:NOT#NEWS' "a brief appearance in the news." The coverage has been lasting and substantial. Even WP:NOT#NEWS states: "News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." The sources are VERY substantial in this case.
  Even in the last month, seven months after her death, there has been two more published works that are specifically about this person and not the shootings. [1][2]. There's too much topic-specific content here to be redirected to the already long List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Oakshade. Tavix (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Oakshade's argumentation.--Aldux (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  
• Comment Can we please not do this Keep/Delete Per Xxxxxx thing, this is not supposed to be a vote. Thanks. Brokethebank (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's a valid opinion when referring to a well-formulated extensive argument. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:PERNOM (There is no WP:PER Xxxx) which actually states the same reason for validity of such an opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• WP:PERNOM refers to support/opposition for the nominator's rationale, not individuals weighing in on the matter. And truthfully, I don't think either your or my positions are so extensively laid out that a simple "per Xxxxx" can do the job. Just a suggestion.....Brokethebank (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep transient but significant news coverage in WP:RS. Borderline between the transient nature of the coverage and the extensive nature of it. Err on the side of retaining info. JJL (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Virginia Tech Massacre. This issue keeps coming up; can't we get a policy on it? If Couture-Nowak were alive, she probably wouldn't be notable. Therefore, the only claim to notability is the manner of her death. Which means she isn't really notable, just the fact that she was tangentially involved in a notable event. Not all the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing are notable, same with 9/11. Most of the news articles about here are basically fancied up obituaries. Therefore, she's just notable for this one event. Per WP:BIO1E, we should cover the event, not the person. eaolson (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Keep. Per the addition of the scholarship at Virginia Tech and the bursary both named after her, I think she has long-term relevance and therefore notability. eaolson (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Some of the 9/11 victims are notable. Edward Felt , Todd Beamer and Tom Burnett for examples, who likely would not have been considered "notable" if they weren't involved in the attacks. WP:BIO1E applies to "essentially low profile" and living persons; this person is neither. Arbcom ruled to apply it in one case to a "recently deceased" person, but that did not change WP:BLP to apply to deceased people despite numerous attempts. We're beyond "recent" at this point anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. But notice that those people are notable for what they did. Two of them posthumously won awards. Couture-Nowak is notable only because she died during a notable event. The NY Times ran biographical articles on many of the 9/11 victims and I assume many of the out-of-towners had articles in their local papers, too. That's coverage in multiple sources, but not notability. eaolson (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As the subject of multiple independent, nontrivial articles in national newspapers of at least two countries, Couture-Nowak clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. NOT#NEWS is not relevant because the events that brought her notability (establishing a school, role in Virginia Tech massacre) are of enduring importance. BRMo (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to have had enough coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. I agree with the arguments above that this person is only notable as a victim. However, at this point there seems to be a lot of interest (although again I agree that most sources are little else than "fancied up obituaries". Come back with this AfD in a year when things have calmed down and people feel less emotional about it. If there would then still be many argueing for notability, then this person probably is notable after all. If not, this could become a simple redirect to the main article on the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crusio (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the Canadian angle. Yes, she was one of many victims, but her death had special significance in the Canadian zeitgeist -- go read our article to see what I mean. Even the Prime Minister got involved. For a hypothetical analogy, think of the kidnapping of an American journalist in Iraq -- (I'm guessing) they'll likely get a lot of press coverage in the U.S. Wikipedia and even an article on the English Wikipedia, whereas the kidnapping of an Iraqi journalist won't. Reason: it's a big deal in the home country. The same is true of Ms. Couture-Nowak in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; enough reliable sources. Continuing to bring up an article for AfD because there's no consensus is disruptive and pointless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She was the subject of numerous articles here in Canada, and her notability was more than just extended coverage of the massacre. And I adopt the reasoning in the last nom as to why WP:BIO1E does not apply here. Furthermore, I have to say that this fifth nomination is verging on abusive. It is becoming to difficult to assume good faith at this point. Simply because "there's no rule against bringing it again if there was no consensus last time" does not mean that doing so again is appropriate or warranted. I really wish that the nominator had heeded the advice of the admin that closed the last nomination, namely:"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?". Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like its snowing. Hammer1980·^talk 19:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Indeed, though I think in fairness to people who have !voted "Delete" in the other 4 nominations, we should let the process play out for the full five days. It looks like Keep is coming out strongly, but not sure WP:SNOW applies to the fifth nomination after four "no consensus" closings. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. She's really not notable. GJ (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• As she's the primary subject of numerous secondary independent sources (which have continued many months after her death) and even the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper paid tribute to her in Parliament [3], "really not notable" doesn't seem like an appropriate description of this person --Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per the same arguments I (and others) made in AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3, and AfD 4. Simply put, there isn't a special class of notability that says that it has to be determined before death and not because of cause of death. Her life has been covered by multiple major independent sources, and that's what the guidelines specify. It's possible to write a verifiable article on her; that's what policy requires. Agreeing with Skeezix that it's hard to AGF on a fifth nomination, especially when the closing of the last AfD and the endorsing of DRV specifically asked there not to be further nominations without new evidence, none of which appears in Brokethebank's nom. It seems to be a case of "repeat until desired outcome is achieved." See also, precedent moving toward Keeping the articles for instructors (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamie_Bishop closed with Keep), even for instructors with *far* less coverage than Ms. Couture-Nowak. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, consensus is in fact changing, even more strongly to Keep. I think this time there is finally clear consensus, clear enough to be decisive. We follow the sources. WP NEWS means only that if there were two or three stories the first few days, she wouldn't be notable. Any broader extension is unwarranted by policy or by common sense. DGG (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. My initial impulse was to say keep because of the amount of references on her, but on checking the references they say the same thing - she was a teacher who was shot in the Virgina Tech massacre. She has no notability beyond the massacre, and no references assert anything other than she was a person who was caught up in a terrible event. No references are sustained - they give the bare details of a decent French teacher, but nothing more. The List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre can go into detail in much the same way as this, and this and this, etc, do. Incidentally, the references in the article need tidying, some are dead links and some are links to commercial sites where you have to pay to read the article. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 10:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually lot of these references are very in depth about her life, career, family, role in founding of Nova Scotia's only Francaphone school, etc. and not the shootings. Even the two that were published in the last month are about her and not the April incident. As DGG pointed out above, BIO1E applies only to subjects that were two or three stories the first few days. Sadly, this person (and not he three you linked to above) is considered of "historic" importance, whether it was instigated by one tragedy or not. --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral summary: Jocelyne Couture-Nowak is a person who came to fame by being shot in the Virginia Tech massacre. At first, this sounds like a clear-cut case of BIO1E. Unfortunately the waters are muddied by the fact that after death, several media outlets decided to turn her into a hero by publishing stories about her life. Technically, these news stories assert notability according to the general notability criteria. Some would argue that this is sufficient for inclusion of the article. Others would argue that common sense needs to be applied, and that since this person's only actual claim-to-fame is the Virginia Tech massacre, BIO1E still applies. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good explanation. Circeus (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per overwhelming consensus above and because it's a victim in one of history's most notable school shootings with at least national recognition and many readily available sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• While Virginia Tech is likely the only reason that she has actual fame in the sense of being a relative household name, establishing the first French language public school in central Nova Scotia is, in and of itself, a sufficiently notable accomplishment as to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. The shooting merely sped up the process of somebody actually writing an article about her, but even if the shooting hadn't happened at all she'd still be notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Gaining fame specifically for the manner of one's death may not make an otherwise non-notable person notable, but it doesn't make an otherwise notable person non-notable, either. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into main article on massacre - this is a bad case of Wikipedia policies still not covering all possible cases. This lady gained media attention posthumously in sad and bizarre circumstances, and, in a snowball process, became the subject of several media reports. This is still a case of secondary, or "reflected", notability - had she not met the tragic fate, chances are she would have never been subject to media attention, and if ever an encyclopedic article was created on her based on her life before the massacre, it would have been deleted on grounds of non-notability. She was one of the three parents who were somehow involved in the founding of a school in Canada, but I wouldn't say this is something people are usually regarded of encyclopedic notability. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Language issues impart extra notability to the school statement. Nova Scotia is not a predominantly French-speaking province, so establishing the first French language school in a large geographic subdivision of Nova Scotia inherently constitutes a more notable accomplishment than most schools would. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't focus on if someone was not notable in the past, but if that they're notable now, regardless of how they became notable. Even many months after her death, reliable sources are still writing about her. This woman is now sadly part of Canadian history and we can't change that. --Oakshade (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge -- Sure, she deserves recording in history -- just not in her own article. I think many people are wowed at the "extensiveness" of the article when in reality the first lines say it best: she "...was an instructor of French in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia and was the only Canadian victim of the Virginia Tech massacre." That's it. That's all there is, folks. Listen, everyone in that shooting was the "only" something. But more to the point, I don't think she has any historic notability beyond her name and a few facts.
  Just because she had coverage in a bunch of reliable sources doesn't mean she's encyclopedic.Pablosecca (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- and to say that her founding the École acadienne de Truro establishes her notability seems to be ludicrously low for a historical standard. To wit, the article on the École acadienne de Truro was itself deleted in a successful AfD. We must stirve to protect Wikipedia from tribalism and recentism.Pablosecca (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

French language education in Canada hors Québec is not a low historical standard — it's part and parcel of one of the central defining issues of Canadian political life. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Per Oakshade. WillSWC (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - there are no new reasons provided for deletion than what's in the four previous attempts, nor does it seem likely that any new reasons for deletion will emerge. As for reasons to keep on the other hand, Oakshade among others here have indicated new supporting material since the last AfD. The most appropriate way to break the gridlock is a full keep decision, rather than another no consensus, to discourage further unproductive trips to the deletion dentist. Dl2000 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral comment. The previous AfDs ended in "No Consensus" not "Keep", so the fact that no new arguments for delete have been provided is irrelevant. The "Keep" arguers have provided more examples of the same thing, but their underlying case remains the same. We can't just mark this as keep instead of no consensus in order to discourage further AfDs. We must properly evaluate consensus, and it is clear here that once again there is no consensus. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• comment - It is clear here that consensus here is overwhelmingly "keep" this time as opposed to any of the previous AfDs. As correctly pointed out, there has been no new arguments to delete, however there is new supporting arguments to keep; besides the change in consensus, there has been at least two new (and very recent) secondary sources have been written primarily about this person demonstrating lasting historic significance. --Oakshade (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The point I was trying to make is that the deletionists feel that "fancied up obituaries" will never trump BIO1E, so the fact that more "fancied up obituaries" now exist is not a new argument. You are right though, that consensus seems to be swinging to "Keep" this time. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the end, I don't mind if this article survives in and of itself. But the system here is flawed. Consider, that this will be decided based on who bothers to show up and vote (and despite assurances, this is really just a vote -- a vote with more wind and rhetoric). This is not a proper sampling of Wikipedians -- surely the people who elected to "Watch This Page" were those concerned with keeping the article? Ah well, that's the system, and until it's reformed, by it we must abide.Pablosecca (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• All Most of the "delete/merge/redirect" votes here are by those who voted "delete" in previous AfDs, but a majority of the "Keep" votes are by editors participating in an AfD of this topic for the first time. There's indication that all most the users concerned with deleting this article elected to "Watch This Page." --Oakshade (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking only for myself, I didn't participate in any of the previous discussions and "voted" redirect. (Though I'm changing to keep in just a second.)eaolson (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake Eaolson (regarding your pre-keep stance). I see that SilkTork hadn't participated in previous AfDs on this topic. But the remaining "delete" voters, all have voted in previous AfDs on this topic, while a majority of the "keep" voters haven't. --Oakshade (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As per most arguments given for deletion above. One year from now, this article will be forgotten by anybody except close relatives. --Crusio (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Speculation about how the subject might be viewed in the future is not a good deletion argument today - WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Dl2000 (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepPare back the "Post-death recognition", but the "Life and career" establishs sourced notability for me. Mbisanz (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong KeepPer Oakshade's arguements. Wing gundam (talk) 04:10, 14 December 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.