Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (third 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 still no consensus. --Coredesat 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

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

ok...hope I'm doin this correct... umm basically this person is one victim of many victims and she's not that notable -- all she did was get shot. then there was press coverage..... but it was only done because she got shot? hello?, I mean obvious violation of WP:NOT..... i think the consensus policy is that pages need to have something beyond for them to stand on their own -- the question is, "Would she have been notable by herself sans bullet." c'mon, the answer is obviously not. Also: 1) yea there are other victims that have their own pages but those guys were famous enough in their own fields so they can stay -- or what, because they get shot they can never be notable? i think not. 2)oh and I see that there's been a few discussions already and I've been watching but as long as they keep endin in "no consensus" I think we can re-post after a few weeks of 'timeout". ok peace Brokethebank 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This is the article's third AfD; please see the first AfD(delete), first DRV(overturned, relisted AfD), second AfD(no consensus), and second DRV(endorse no consensus) for more info.

• No vote touchy issue here, I can see sides for and against. Whsitchy 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre.--Vintagekits 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself... - this was bound to happen and only goes to prove the points raised in the previous AfDs - I hope this will be enough to prove that in the end, this article got here through the loopholes in WP policies/guidelines rather than exists for a logical and legitimate reason... PrinceGloria 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh BTW thanx to whoever fixed the crazy delet page I made.Brokethebank 20:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Logic in addition to stringent WP: polices/guidelines would dictate that an article about this person be included. Love ABBA references. --Oakshade 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Her family and friends have my sympathies but being a crime victim (particularly for a crime for which we already have an article in which she is mentioned) is simply not notable enough for a biographical encyclopedia. Subject does not pass WP:PROF. --ElKevbo 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets WP:N and WP:BIO as a "subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." BRMo 21:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Editors may wish to refer to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#The new section people are putting in and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Newspaper articles - and especially Tabloid Newspaper articles. for additional context of the current discussion surrounding articles such as these. Uncle G 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - victims of notable crimes need to be personally notable to justify their own article. Sadly, that is not the case here. It should be borne in mind that Wikipedia is not a memorial. TerriersFan 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:MEMORIAL doesn't apply as it refers to non-notable people who don't fall into our WP:N standards - this isn't an article about someone's grandfather that has no published work about them, not to mention multiple major national ones like this person does. --Oakshade 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The topic became notable due to the tragedy. 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. And I'm troubled that this nom has made only 1 edit before starting this AfD since September 2006 [1]. In addition to all of this, we just had a DLR on this topic on May 9, 2007. Way too soon for yet another AfD and lengthy debate. --Oakshade 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• A speedy closure on those grounds would be okay with me. The number of AfDs and DRVs this article has undergone since its creation is a bit much. --ElKevbo 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon my french, but ce raisonnement est risible. That's essentially saying that there's a limit to how much something should be discussed. And it implies that disagreements should only be settled when one side is obviously wrong. Whatever happened to a reasoned and balanced judge, who hears both sides and then explains fully a full decision? Pablosecca 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there is a practical limit to how much something should be discussed. It's entirely appropriate in most cases for an article to occasionally nominate an article for deletion but I don't care for this or any other article to be perpetually nominated for deletion until finally enough editors !vote delete. In this particular case, I don't see the harm in there being a period of cool down between AfDs. At a certain point, continually sending an article to AfD becomes disruptive. --ElKevbo 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• According to WP:DP, "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." As the third AfD within 6 weeks, I don't see any new information or arguments being brought forward. The deletion policy guidance seems applicable to this case. BRMo 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Well, well, well. I see we're back at the chicken shack, yet again. Nice to see you all again. First, a point:

  The article should not be speedily closed because the recent decision was "No consensus" -- a finding that pleads for further argument, which this is. Opinions?

• And truthfully -- here's my honest opinion -- these AfD debates should go on into infinity if necessary before we get an admin with enough spine to make a decision of either keep or delete. I would even accept a decision of "keep" (though I'm sure it's wrong), provided it subsequently passed a deletion review. It's these "no consensus" decisions that are just killing this Wikipedia.

  Back to the matter at hand. For all and sundry let me point out what I think is the gist of notability. Coverage of this woman is totally secondary to her involvement in the tragedy. That, in a nutshell, is why she is not notable. Pablosecca 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Redirect is fine with me too. Pablosecca 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The cause of no consensus is you, failing to achieve consensus, not the closing administrator. If you don't like a lack of consensus, then attempt to persuade other editors, by discussing the issue with them, and thereby form a consensus. Uncle G 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • My point, as I've argued elsewhere, is that not all disagreements are alike. I firmly believe that there is enough written Wikipedia policy to resolve these debates one way or another. It is mistaken to conflate consensus and agreement. When editors call a debate "no consensus" simply because there isn't vast agreement, we run the real risk of harpooning a rational decision; and it introduces opacity into the dialog of the community -- because, suddenly the inertia of disagreement, sham disagreement, results in a useless default "no decision" decision, which is what "no consensus" is.
      To put it another way: it is, I think, impossible for this particular article to be judged a "keep" because there is simply no basis for a victim to get her own page when she is not notable otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that the article is deleted -- it exists by virtue of the default to preserve articles if they aren't judged "delete." Understand? By virtue of a lack of decision, a decision is made; and that stifles argument, and is a classic tactic of repression of ideas.
      I say emphatically that it is wrong to adjudicate "no consensus" unless we find, by virtue of reasoned arguments, that current and accepted Wikipedia policy disagrees with itself, or is obviously internally inconsistent. Because what we are (supposed to be) doing in these AfDs is presenting detailed arguments based on policy -- or else we might as well just show up and settle things with one-word votes.
      Again: if we have 49 people voting "keep" an article, but their arguments are not based on policy, and we have one dissenter who clearly and logically explains his position based on Wikipedia rules, it is wrong to adjudicate "no consensus" and right to find for the lone editor. Otherwise there really is no difference between this and a sheer vote -- besides some bluster and pretense.
      So in conclusion: I see the role of the deciding admin as being one who, knowing the policy backwards and forwards (many admins fail that), is able to spot policy rationales, enlighten the ignorant, correct the misinformed, and most of all MAKE A LUCID DECISION! Pablosecca 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. She is well covered in that article and is nn otherwise. Clarityfiend 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as material already exists in other articles. Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is nothing indicating real notability for this person other than coverage of her murder. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply to otherwise notable people like this person is. As you state, "coverage of the murder" in addition to the long published works about this person's life indicate real notablity. --Oakshade 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Do we mean that two substantial independent RSs establish notability for people, or do we mean that it is not enough without additional factors? It's time we decided, because we are deciding some articles one way and some the other. Oddly, the better known the subject is, the more WPedians are interested in the question, and are likely to come here and explain why it's not notable. Being killed in a tragedy so notable that the individual death results in substantial international media coverage is notable by any rational standard, and the more people protest that it isn't, the more they show that it is. DGG 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If the subject was not notable enough to have an article in life, there is no reason to have an article after(and because of the circumstances) her death. Stellatomailing 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless major media outlets wrote multiple long stories about their lives as a result of the circumstances. --Oakshade 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has reliable sources which are enough to establish notability. --Eastmain 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The entire article on this woman could very easily be accommodated in substance in a few lines on the page for the Victims of the VTech massacre. The question is does she deserve her own article. Pablosecca 09:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP There is a concept called "abuse of process" where one party in a dispute does not accept the outcome and keeps coming back. PLease accepct that as there is some doubt if this person can be considered NOT notable, that the doubt requires that the article stand, potentaly unused and unloved, but there if it is needed by the users of the encyclopedia. Even if Madame Couture-Nowak is only 1/2 notable as a techer and 1/2 notable as the founder of a french language school, and even if the article was created by someone reading the Obits. That adds up to putting the notability total to more than one. Lets not waste our effort in arguing if that means she is at 98% notable or 105%. Please let's agree that her notability would have incressed over time if not for the VTM, and let's put the effort into writing more aticles (or even filling out this one)cmacd 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Any reliable sources on her before her death? Michaelas¹⁰ 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Once again, the sources are entirely incidental, so what's the point in keeping around a non-notable biography? See my arguements at the previous deletion debates and DRV. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:BIO and let's move on. Dustbowldiaspora 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Meets WP:BIO and WP:N for her work in establishing the French public school in Nova Scotia, with significant impact to French-speakers in that area. Also -- per cmacd: this third AfD amounts to abuse of process by those who refuse to accept the outcome. --Yksin 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, though I'm beginning to feel like I'm in a bad version of Groundhog Day. Victimhood by itself is not notable per the sitewide precedent to move articles on 9/11 victims off Wikipedia. The only claim to notability is as co-founder of a school. As the school has been found to be not notable, founding it cannot be used to declare notability. (Oakshade, there is no need to reply to me here. We've already had our go around in previous debates.) - BanyanTree 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete again. Dying does not confer notability, and there is no real claim preceeding her death. Her mention in the main articles on the VaTech shootings are sufficient. Resolute 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She has to be notable now, not at some time in the past. If there are

RSs devoted specifically to her, it meets the requirements. The reason we have standards for N is to prevent arguments of this sort; News sources write stories that they know people will want to read--because they know people will consider it notable. They are somewhat better at it than we are, overall. So we reasonably accept that if two different major new sources have chosen to write the story, she has become notable, and that really should be the end of it.

Now, I am not 100% sure that the above is the best rule. But we have to work by one rule or another, to stop every article from being a contest of ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT, or IKNOWINMYHEARTSHESNOTABLE vs the opposite. We could adopt a rule that the actual career has to be enough to qualify her by any one of a number of standards in addition to the sources. But we dont have that rule--and perhaps theres a good reason, because we might never agree: I'll accept one LP if you accept three books? We'll accept someone who kills 3 people, but not 2? (we do have shortcuts, like being an athlete in the Olympics, or being mayor of a large city, because we know there will be stories) We can't judge some articles by one standard and some by another, according to the feeling here that day.--and , even worse, keep doing it again and again to the same articles day after day. I think repeated nomination at this frequency is beginning to interfere with the operation of Wikipedia. DGG 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see your point, but I fear that your suggestion evidences a wish for security that is ill-placed. I think that this is the true nature of "consensus" -- when reasonable people gather and express an opinion, while respecting the overall policy. To say that anyone who is the subject of a news item whatever is automatically notable is too mechanical and knee-jerk. Official Wikipedia policy even enshrines this in the form of WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. There is a balance to be struck, and that is the hope that people place in "consensus". Pablosecca 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am willing to be swayed either way by good insights. There needs to be more of that and less emotion in this discussion. Since the last discussion, there has been one, just one, change of any substance to the article and just two posts (aside from "sham consensus") on the discussion page. If 10% of the people debating deletion (yes both sides) spent 5 minutes cautiously improving the article, we would get somewhere. And improving can mean reducing. If working at a non-notable daycare is non-notable, Deleters should discuss that on the article's discussion page. Yes, I appreciate it's more time-consuming than simply voting Delete for the 13th time (especially if you feel the whole article is non-notable)...but showing respect is an important of progress. Instead, we are back at this pointless, repetitive debate which verges on abuse of process. I'm siding with the view expressed in the Deletion Review: "repeated attempts to delete content are not in the spirit of of an open resource." Canuckle 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the author of the "sham consensus" post, I feel must make a quick point here regarding abuse of process. I am not willing to fight endless battles over articles. There have been a very small number of articles that I have been against; sometimes it's happened that the article gets brought to an AfD and the judgment is "keep". When that happens I respect that decision and do not raise the debate further.
  The reason that this is not abuse of process, in my opinion, is that this article has not been judged "keep" at all, ever, and was initially judged "delete". I for one refuse to agree that an article should exist on the basis of "no consensus". Let this article be judged "keep" (though of course I feel strongly that would be wrong) and pass a deletion review if need be, and let it stay at that. Or, likewise, let it be deleted, and let it stay at that, too. Pablosecca 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi Pablosecca. I hope I have not offended you by noting the title of the "sham consensus" topic on the article's discussion page. I noted it not to cast judgement on the merits of that argument, but to note that it was a discussion about process. It did not discuss the merits of the article. A definitive decision is indeed desirable. One that both sides can agree with would be even better and in the spirit of open collaboration. How do we get there? One way would be to remove the the threat of immindent deletion and discuss the merits of the article on the article's discussion page Canuckle 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Everyking 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • May I ask why? Michaelas¹⁰ 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Tons of press coverage, far more than the accepted minimum for inclusion as a subject. Everyking 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's incidental, not independent of her biography. As such, leaving this article around is useless and unnecessary. Why not just utilize the notability implied from those sources to merely mention her as a part of the tragedy timeline? Michaelas¹⁰ 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The coverage is not incidental. Most of the coverage is about her life and work before the massacre, not just about "incidents". --Oakshade 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I meant she became widely covered due to an incident, not her personal notability. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
            • According to WP:N and WP:BIO, notability can be demonstrated by coverage by "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; the guidelines do not make an exception for people who are covered by reliable sources primarily because of their death or murder. There are many examples in Wikipedia of articles about people who became notable when they were killed—a couple of especially prominent examples are J.D. Tippit and Ronald Goldman, but there are dozens of others—take a look at the articles in categories like Category:Murder victims by nationality and its subcategories, or Category:Murdered police officers and its subcategory. WP:BIO does say, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," but the examples of trivial coverage are things like "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing." Couture-Nowak has been the primary subject of several newspaper articles—this is not trivial coverage. BRMo 03:52, 3 June 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.