- Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
This person is the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Here are just some of them - [1][2][3][4][5]. This passes the absolute core of WP:NOTABILITY, not to mention WP:BIO. The published works about this person were inspired by her being a victim in the Virginia Massacre. This victim stood out as a major story in Canada. A majority of the "delete" votes were using the incorrect arguments to delete this article. For one "Doesn't pass WP:PROF." WP:PROF doesn't apply as she's not "notable" due to her academic work. Alot of people cited the Wikipedia is not a memorial clause (buried deep in WP:NOT), but this doesn't apply as WP:MEMORIAL states; "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." This wasn't somebody writing an article about their grandpa, but it was someone who passed our primary "notability" standards by being the primary subject of multiple published works. It appears that if someone passes our core WP:NOTABILITY guidelines easily, some editors can arbitrarily employ WP:IGNORE if they don't like the reasons that a topic was the primary subject of non-trivial published works by reliable sources. That negates are core "Notablitly" standards greatly. --Oakshade 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Additional comment - I guess I should've said this to begin with (too caught up in the arguement of incorrect applications of our guidelines), but there also wasn't a clear consenus to delete. --Oakshade 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion - Process was followed. This is not another AfD, DRV is to determine if process was correctly followed. --StuffOfInterest 17:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- A DRV can also be used if an editor thinks other editors were not following our policy and guidelines properly. --Oakshade 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. My explanation can be found here. As you've putten yourself, all the published works about this person were directly inspired by her being a victim in the Virginia Massacre. Did they explain her biography due to personal notability rather than elucidating the event's details? The answer is no, I'm afraid. Michaelas10 17:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The stories were about her life and inspired by her death. Not contesting that at all. But they are still published works primarily about her and her. The Canadian press took great interest in this specific person because it was of great interest to their readers/viewers and that's why this topic easily passes WP:N. There's no qualification of "previous accomplishments" in WP:N. --Oakshade 18:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lets put it this way — what exactly is she notable for? WP:BLP (the subject was recently deceased, but anyhow) requires that biographies discuss only main notable works without striving towards external details, unless those have received unrelated media coverage. In this case, as the subject is notable only for being a victim, a separate article would redundant — if not completely unnecessary. Michaelas10 18:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've never seen anyone cite a WP:BLP clause when arguing the "notability" of someone, especially if that person is not a living person. This is about the "notability" of someone, not about following verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research which is the subject of WP:BLP (see the BLP "in a nutshell" box). If there was something you found to be inaccurate and not cited properly (not to mention if the person is alive), then that is a BLP issue, not a "notabilty" one. The topic of "notability" is what WP:N and WP:BIO are for. --Oakshade 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. I believe the comment above, asking whether the sources "explain[ed] her biography due to personal notability" is evidence of a misreading of WP:N. A person is notable if she has been the subject of multiple reliable, independent sources. That's it! There's no requirement of any "personal accomplishments" or the like. That wanders into the territory of original research, where we determine notability not on the basis of what others have written, but on the basis of what we editors think. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion process was correctly followed. As another user stated, DRV is not another Afd.--Jersey Devil 18:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- And as states above, a DRV can also be used if an editor thinks other editors were not following our policy and guidelines properly. --Oakshade 18:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. One, there was no consensus to delete. Two, most argued that she wasn't notable enough for inclusion in spite of the tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary. Three, not a memorial isn't about deleting articles about notable people, but about not making an article about your friend who died who wouldn't be noteworthy otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, because absolutely no consensus to delete, discussion was still quite lively, one of only a few professors killed in the worst school shooting in at least American history, notable for other achievements as an educator, etc., etc., etc., etc. --Horace Horatius 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn The deletion was premature. The article should be allowed to remain longer, because it had the potential to fulfill all requirements. G. V. Loganathan was kept, so should this. GarryKosmos 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn - the AFD looks more like a no consensus than a clear consensus to delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial ... but the whole idea there is that we don't make an article to go along with every obituary in the newspaper. I really wish we could delete all of the student articles, keep all teacher articles, and leave it that way for a few weeks until the media attention dies down - having xFD templates everywhere is bad. --BigDT (416) 21:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion per Michaelas and StuffOfInterest. Most of the stuff brought up in this deletion review are arguments that were already made in the AfD, so they've already been discussed and considered. Deletion Review isn't for "please consider my arguments again!" It seemed to me to be a pretty clear consensus for delete, especially considering many of the keep votes were based on "She's one of the victims in the tragedy!" which alone isn't a valid criteria for notability. In addition, G. V. Loganathan's article was also kept as a result of a unilateral speedy keep decision by the administrator, so there was never a proper chance for discussion about that. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#G._V._Loganathan Tejastheory 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The speedy keeping of the G._V._Loganathan article is highly contentious (even though I voted to keep the article, I voted to overturn the speedy as there was not an overwhelming early consensus to keep it). And this article did not have a clear consensus to delete. That you argued to discount the keep voters for various invalid reasons, this DRV is arguing the Delete voters used invalid reasons. We seem to be in agreement as to when certain types of "votes" should be reviewed. --Oakshade 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion and redirect, Wikipedia is not a memorial. o evidence of independent notabiltiy, AfD was procedurally correct and correct per policy. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The WP:MEMORIAL clause applies to those that do not pass our "notability" standards as this person does. As for "independent" notability, the multiple published works about this person were specifically about the person and her life and not the other victims. --Oakshade 22:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion and redirect, the close was proper and the subject had no notability per WP:BIO prior to her death, and all keep arguments were mixtures of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOHARM, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and in violation of WP:MEMORIAL, since the subject did not meet notability guidelines prior to the fact. Also, the speedy keeping of G. V. Loganathan violated WP:CSK and should not be used as any sort of precedent. --Coredesat 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- While agreeing with the incorrect speedy keeping of the G. V. Loganathan article (nobody here is suggesting that was some kind of precedent), this article easily passes our WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines as being the primary subject of mulitple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. WP:MOMORIAL does NOT apply to subjects that meet our notability standards. If an editor chooses to argue that the person should've also been notable "prior" to their new-found notability, then that is an arbitrary arguement and not based on our guidelines. --Oakshade 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem here is that she doesn't, unless someone is willing to provide evidence to the contrary. This is why we do not have articles on every single 9/11 victim, or every single Columbine victim, because most of them don't meet the notability guidelines. --Coredesat 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Every single 9/11 victim was not the subject of multiple works that covered their life. Also, there is no requirement that individuals become notable while they are alive. A number of famous artists received attention and renown only after their death. Does that mean we must exclude them as well? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse - the arguments raised by the AfD initiator and the proposers seemed to be very valid in view of the WP policies and guidelines, while those raised by the Wikipedists proposing to keep the article were either quite irrelevant or sufficient counterarguments were supplied. The only valid issue was the interpretation of WP:BIO vs. WP:MEMORIAL based on the understanding of the nature of the "multiple nontrivial works" quoted in the article. While a common-sense interpretation was applied and I believe this was the right way to go in that case, it also shows that WP:BIO needs to be amended ASAP, as it remains ambigious and even in direct opposition to e.g. WP:MEMORIAL, providing for such cases. PrinceGloria 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a WP:BIO vs. WP:MEMORIAL debate as WP:MEMORIAL only applies to topics that don't meet our notability standards and it doesn't disqualify WP:N and WP:BIO. The let's use common sense argument is nice to sometimes use (I feel like using it too on occasion), but it negates our strict standards and introduces arbitrary arguments to keep or delete articles.--Oakshade 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia was founded on common sense. Our standards, rules, policies, guidelines, etc., came later, and actually, really aren't that firm. Rockstar (T/C) 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I try to use common sense when wanting to keep topics that don't have any published works about them and get pounced on for doing so. But this topic clearly meets our standards and its quite puzzling that some edtiors who come down on un-sourced topics like a ton of bricks are choosing to ignore the same standards for only "common sense" reasons here.. --Oakshade 23:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Re: Oakshade) Not really - WP:NOT does not apply to topics that are not notable, because such topics would not appear in WP at all. WP:NOT, in a way, defines notability of certain subject, discussing their appropriateness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. So we've got a case where WP:NOT is against while WP:BIO would seem to be for the inclusion of Wikipedia. If you want to apply striclty legal rules here, WP:NOT is a policy while the notability guidelines are only guidelines subordinate to policies, so WP:NOT takes precedence.
I do, however, believe in a common-sense approach - since the media coverage was only a result of participation in anevent not making a person notable, and their content did not prove notability either, I believe it should not be treated as a proof of notability. Again, this all shows the need to further refine the notability guidelines. PrinceGloria 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. AfD closed properly. Subject is not notable outside of the event, and all of her coverage has been in the context of it -- the page serves much better as a redirect. Rockstar (T/C) 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, many of the works covered her life before the massacre. In addition, there is no requirement that topics be notable inside or outside of certain objects or contexts. A topic is notable simply if it has been the subject of multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I realize what the rules say, when interpreted strictly and conservatively and without Wikipedia's philosophies in mind (if it looks like a Wikilawyer, smells like a Wikilawyer...), and I'm saying we should use common sense here. The only reason there were articles written about her (and obviously, her life before the massacre) is due to the massacre. The articles were written as a memorial, and Wikipedia's article was reporting on the printed memorial. Common sense, to me, says to redirect, as the article is WP:MEMORIAL wrapped in a different package. Rockstar (T/C) 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:MEMORIAL applies to topics that do not meet our own "notability" standards which do not have multiple published works by reliable sources about them as this topic does. Just because an editor doesn't like why it meets our standards doesn't mean the topic isn't "notable." --Oakshade 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is rather obvious the person was subject of media coverage solely due to her death in a media-covered event. In a way, we have a circular reference here, because WP:MEMORIAL would generally say the inclusion is unencyclopedic because she is not notable on her own, but the WP:BIO guideline for notability would purport she is notable, while her entire "notability" is just what WP:MEMORIAL is precluding from inclusion. I mean, it really is more important what the matter of fact actually is than what a guideline says. It only shows the guideline must be amended, because it allows for inclusion of items that should not be included according to more "core" WP policies. What is of "interest" to the media does not have to be of "interest" to an encyclopedia. PrinceGloria 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody is countering that the person became the subject of multiple published works due to her death. The one-sentence clause of WP:MEMORIAL refers to people who aren't the subject of multiple published works. There's no qualifier that reads anything like "If the person became notable because of their death then they're not notable." If they became the subject of non-trivial published works by reliable sources because of their death, there is absolutely nothing in WP:MEMORIAL that negates their notability. The "My interpretation of the WP:MEMORIAL cluase overrides the primary clauses of WP:N of WP:BIO" argument is almost too nonsensical to counter. --Oakshade 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way. When my grandfather died, his obituary was published in two newspapers. Theoretically, per your standard of WP:N, my grandfather deserves to be in Wikipedia simply because he fulfills the letter of the law. An obituary is an article reflecting one's life after the subject died. The articles written about those killed in the massacre were no different. They were, essentially, very publicized obituaries. So yeah, WP:MEMORIAL does sometime override WP:BIO, because of that little phrase called "common sense." Rockstar (T/C) 01:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Didn't someone have to pay to put those obituaries of your grandfather in the newspaper? Wasn't the obituary written by a close friend or relative? I don't think you can count the typical obituary as a non-trivial published work by a reliable source. The typical obituary is not a newspaper article written by a reliable source, it's a paid advertisement, and there is generally no fact-checking done on them before publication. If your grandfather's obituaries were written and fact-checked by the newspapers staff, well, then I'd say he's notable. anthony 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- With respect to your grandfather, he had two obituaries (one or two paragraphs? paid for?) published in newspapers, not the over-30 long articles that were written and reserched by reporters and editors and published by major national media outlets like this topic had.[6] --Oakshade 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's ironic that you ask. Most obits are written by family, but most newspapers have obit writers on staff, and in the case of my grandfather, the obit writers wrote the respective obituaries. So I guess he does pass WP:N, if you read the letter of the law to a point, without actually asking yourself what it means. There's a reason why we don't have firm rules, and that's because Wikipedia was built on common sense. My grandfather, besides having two obituaries written about him by obituary writers (thereby probably fulfilling both WP:N and WP:RS), is not notable enough for Wikipedia (or at least my interpretation of WP, maybe not yours), even though he might survive an AfD. The only thing that made him notable was his death. There's no difference between that case and this one. Common sense overrides WP:N. Oh, and to respond to Oakshade -- WP:N just asks for "multiple" sources. It doesn't matter if there's two or fifty. Rockstar (T/C) 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Who provided the information for the obit writers? If they investigated the information themselves, or at least fact checked it, and you can somehow show that this is the case, well, yes, I'd say your grandfather is notable enough for Wikipedia (something that you seem to even admit yourself when you say that "The only thing that made him notable was his death"). Of course, in the case of Jocelyne we have the additional reasoning that there are many people who want to read about her. It might not make sense to have an article on your grandfather, if no one wants to read a biography on your grandfather, but it does make sense to have an article on Jocelyne, because people do want to read about her. anthony 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter who provided what information to who. Who provided the information to the NY Times for this person? The family and friends, no doubt. However, I would like to point out that we have now just added some subjectivity to WP:N, which, I think, furthers my point. Just because someone fulfills WP:N doesn't mean they deserve a WP article. Or at least that's what can be understood from your comment. Furthermore, it should be noted that the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre just ended as a keep, with the closing admin citing that the group was notable collectively, not individually. Rockstar (T/C) 02:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the NY Times "at least fact checked" the information they are reporting for this person, and I think that does matter. As I've said, if your grandfather's obit has been fact checked by a reliable newspaper reporter, then I think your grandfather is notable. Would I be willing to ignore WP:N in the case of a biography that absolutely no one cared about? Probably, but that isn't what we have here. anthony 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- No -- what we have here is something that people care about, sure. But just because people care about it or find it interesting doesn't mean it belongs on WP. What we have here is someone who is anything but notable becoming notable only because of her death as a part of a group. And to me, it seems like the correct place to put an article like this is not in its own page but rather in the context of that group. Rockstar (T/C) 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we should ignore WP:N just because some people think that someone they admit is notable is notable for what they consider to be the wrong reason. If we were going to do that, then I'd nominate the biography of the killer for deletion. He's the one who doesn't "deserve" an article. But I respect the fact that others disagree, and in cases of deletion of a deceased individual I think we can err on the side of inclusion. anthony 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we're ignoring WP:N. I think we're interpreting WP:N (which, by the way, and for the third time, is not a firm rule). And I think that the consensus of voters on the other respective AfDs have said that as a group, each individual is notable. But individually, they are not. Rockstar (T/C) 03:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS also adds some insight here. Rockstar (T/C) 05:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have consistently acknowledged the fact that WP:N is not a firm rule. It is a guideline, unlike WP:NOTNEWS which is just an essay, but not a firm rule. There are very few firm rules in Wikipedia, after all. I did think you were ignoring WP:N, as your argument seems to be not that WP:N supports deletion, but rather that the article should be deleted despite WP:N. In fact, you've outright admitted many times that this person is notable.
- So I thought your argument was that yes, this person is notable, but that we should ignore that because of special circumstances and/or common sense. And while I agree that we should ignore WP:N when special circumstances come up which make WP:N nonsensical, I don't agree with you that this is a case of that. anthony 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, the person is NOT notable, "her" claim to notability is based on the false assumption that incidental media coverage is enough to assume notability in the sense required to be featured on Wikipedia. If you'd read WP:N, incidental news coverage is not enough to pass it. PrinceGloria 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- (reset indent) This is turning really nasty now given that we are essentially discussing deceased people, but Rockstar's example of his own grandfather is a good one. Mme Jocelyn-Nowak was most probably covered so "widely" by the media (please remain serious and note that her "biographies" are rather desperate collections of minor facts that could be found about her), because it was relatively easy to dig out fact about her. She was a part of the Virgina Tech community in the way that her husband works and lives there, and she probably had many colleagues that were easy to identify and reach by reporters coming on site, who (relatives and colleagues) in turn showed relative willingness to share their stories with the reporters. The difference between Rockstar's grandfather case and this one is negligible when we discuss what "claim to fame" both have. I understand Rockstar's grandfather died in less spectacular circumstances, not related to a media-covered event, and thus the lower number of press "obituaries". Yet still, media coverage due to one's death can be understood as "obituaries" IMHO, which makes one ineligible for a Wikipedia entry due to WP:MEMORIAL.
I am sorry but I have to admit I am really tired of this discussion going in circles due to numerous people going like "but I feel she was notable" or referring to a poorly-worded guideline, so I think the above reads far worse than I hope it would. The number of people coming here and seeing the reason to endorse deletion is encouraging, though. PrinceGloria 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rockstar's example of his own grandfather is not a good one because he has presented no evidence that anyone wants to read a biography on his grandfather. As I've said before, *if* we can write a decent biography on Rockstar's grandfather based on reliable sources, *and* someone is interested in writing such a biography, *and* someone is interested in reading such a biography, *then* I wouldn't support the deletion of that biography either. In the case of this article, we can write a decent biography based on reliable sources, there are people interested in writing it, and there are people interested in reading it.
- I'll even go further. If Rockstar wants to write a biography on his grandfather using reliable sources (I still haven't been convinced such sources exist), I'm not going to stop him or try to get his biography deleted. anthony 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with PrinceGloria. This discussion has lasted far too long. And PrinceGloria's arguments were far superior to anyone else's to this point, including mine. We really should evaluate the point of Wikipedia, and I think it we did, we would all realize that these people are not notable enough individually to warrant their own articles. Furthermore, let's keep the eye on the prize: was the AfD closed procedurally? That's the real DRV question. Rockstar (T/C) 16:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn for the many well put reasons above. No intelligent reason given to delete in the first place . . . Sorry, but must be blunt. --172.167.132.145 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.167.132.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Can you please qualify that statement please before you call everyone who voted for delete unintelligent? Thank you. Rockstar (T/C) 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe this deletion should be overturned. There was no consensus for the deletion, and Jocelyne was notable per the notability guidelines. Additionally, I believe the encyclopedia is better with this information - and there are quite a few people looking for it. Finally, I think it's disgusting to have a biography on the killer but not to have one on the victims. anthony 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. WP is not a memorial, the instructor is/was not notable. Some people here are allowing sentiment and emotion to overtake consistent judgment. WWGB 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem that anyone here wants to overturn this deletion for emotional or sentimental reasons, but more so for Wikipedia procedural reasons like because this person passes our core "notability" guidelines, there was no consensus to delete and many people cited guidelines that didn't apply to this topic. --Oakshade 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*Note some of the above comments are worded wrong--the article is not deleted, and endorse means to keep, overturn means delete.
- Perhaps some of the confusion was caused by blanking the article during discussion--I have never seen that done before. DGG 02:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I had to strike your comment as it is incorrect. Forgive me if I made a mistake, but I think the above wording is correct. The AfD ended in a delete, therefore it should be "endorse deletion" or "overturn and keep." Rockstar (T/C) 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- This indicates the confusion: the AfD is indeed so marked, but the page for J C-N carries the information "This article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, because a recent decision to retain it on Wikipedia has been appealed." I am sure we can rely on the closer taking care to decipher the intentions of each of the people voting. DGG 02:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! So you're right. I think Oakshade made the DRV notice on the page... maybe he should change it? But yeah, I think the closing admin should be able to decipher (or at least let's hope so). Good catch. Rockstar (T/C) 02:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've now fixed the article page to accurately say the article was deleted, not retained. Tejastheory 04:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Waaaaaait a moment! Why is actually this article existing in any form, be it simply a deletion review template? If an article is deleted, it IS delted, until perhaps an AfD is overturned. It should remaina redlink. I am assuming bad faith here, I know, but I believe somebody put the template there to direct an influx of the article's fans here to "vote". Bad faith aside, this template surely is creating the wrong impression that an article on the subject exists in some form or another, whereas it does NOT, because it was deleted. I would be most obliged if an admin cleaned up this mess and made sure the article remains deleted not only actually but also formally. The template substed is only for articles that were NOT deleted, but who survived AfD which is not contested by means of deletion review. PrinceGloria 07:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion. The reasons for deletion make an implicit claim that we require sources not to be in connection with a large event to count for notability. That is simply not the case, although some people are saying it should be. Regardless, it is not the case now, and thus, it can not be used to decide things. -Amarkov moo! 03:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse The subject of the article has no notability outside such an event -- and even within that event she has no special distinction -- the fact that several papers used her to make "local focus" copy is insufficient for notoriety -- such coverage is merely an extension of the coverage of the tragedy itself and therefore incidental. Pablosecca 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Addendum -- and may I also second the notion that this particular discussion is in relation to process being followed, which was. Time enough was given for arguments to be articulated, and the admin made an adjudication on a complex (and emotional for some) issue. Pablosecca 04:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion: The article was well written as to not repeat content in other articles related to the massacre, and she had (in general) an interesting profile before her untimely death. A scholarship is planned in her name too. This is one of the few articles I thought was worthy of keeping. +mwtoews 04:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion I looked in vain for the subjects of other school shootings with separate articles. I think Liviu Librescu qualifies both under WP:PROF, but also because of his notable actions. This subject does not meet WP:PROF and being the random victim of a crime does not, per se, make one notable - but I realise there are exceptions. The coverage in Canada concerning Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was incidental to the event itself, and was predicated on no other fact than she happened to be the only Canadian victim - in other words, not her inherent notability either per se or as a victim. fishhead64 07:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with the suggestion to use some notion of "inherent notability" or "inherent non-notability". As editors, we shouldn't make that judgment. Doing so violates Wikipedia:No original research. If others consider a topic "worthy of note" by writing about it, then we have proof that it is notable; if no one has written about a topic, then we lack such proof. We can argue that X or Y are notable or non-notable all we want, but the only evidence we can present to buttress our arguments is the presence or absence of reliable sources. In this case, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was deemed "worthy of note" by others (you're not just dismissing the others because they're Candadian, eh?
:)). Any attempt to measure her "inherent notability" before the incident or separate from her death is a futile exercise in subjectivity. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I am Canadian, and I still hold that not everyone who appears on the 6:00 news or has articles written about them meet the standards of WP:N, thats why we have WP:UCS - to make these determinations. If Couture-Nowak is notable by these standards, so is the victim of every crime which makes it into the news. fishhead64 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion No consensus; notable. Postlebury 07:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion People are actively searching for this article on Wikipedia, by name. This article was not an obituary but a profile of a notable person and it ought to be restored. If Wikipedia really is "the people's encyclopedia" then give the people what they want. --Gisaster25 08:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- How in the world do you know people are searching for this person? Do you have any access to a search database that we haven't? I guess there might be even more people coming here in search of free porn, and we don't provide that (hopefully)... Some "people" also want Infiniti G20 paint codes, but at the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia rather than "people's". Regards, PrinceGloria 08:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also see WP:USEFUL. --Coredesat 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion. Notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't an AFD. --Coredesat 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure of the AfD in question as delete, as I feel that the closing admin made a proper judgement call based on the discussion at hand. However, I have no prejudice against the creation of an article on the subject as long as it is shown that she meets our cold, passionless, emotionless criteria for inclusion. Otherwise, redirect to the most appropriate target. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion I disagree that there was no consensus. If you ignore emotional comments like "she deserves to be rembered" and "she is Canadian like me", you will see that deleters spoke their case clearly and the decission to delete is correct and consistent with the other AfD debates on VT victims. Medico80 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn There just isn't consensus. If this were a vote, the deletes might have won, but it's not a vote, and I don't see a lot of people making argument that effectively convinced others to work toward a consensus. A Musing 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion I echo most of what was stated above, with an emphasis on this indvidual's lack of notability aside from her death. She is not notable in exactly the same way that a majoirty of the victims from the same tragedy are not notable. We do not have articles for the students who died; this individual should not be given importance over others, who also lack notability, simply because she was a teacher. This article does not add to Wikipedia's encylopedic value because of lack of notability. María (habla conmigo) 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately, individuals can become very notable because of their death. Take the case of Reena Virk whose death as been the source of non-fiction books, novels, plays, commentary and academic studies. Other than her death she is completely non-notable but her death has made her very notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I am well aware of this, and I do agree that there is an exception to every rule. However, I think you are putting importance where importance may not be due; Reena Virk was the sole victim of a crime that inspired works in popular culture, and so it can be said that her crime was enough to make her notable. In the case of Couture-Nowak, it may be too soon to tell what kind of lasting impression her death may have, but for now it is only the time and place of her death that are notable, which is not enough to keep an article afloat. As I said above, there are twenty-nine victims from this tragedy who rightfully do not have articles due to notability issues, and this individual should not be any different. María (habla conmigo) 17:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, There was no consensus to delete at the AFD and the page clearly meets WP:BIO. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion This individual is only notable in terms of an event, and she is covered by the article about that event already. AfD followed process, so I see no reason for this DRV other than not liking the outcome. --Minderbinder 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Have the editors who are claiming no consensus actually read the comments people wrote when expressing whether or delete or keep? I haven't which is why I haven't expressed an opinion. But remember that AFDs are not votes. As such, if people are simply arguing to keep her article because they like it, or because there are other dodgy articles, or because it's disrepectful or whatever then frankly, their opinions are largely irrelevant. It seems to me there are two sides to this. One is the opinions that as WP is not a memorial, having articles written about people because they died in some noteable event is not sufficient notability. In other words, the person still has to be noteable in some way. For example, notable per WP:PROF or have achieved sufficient sustained post-humurous notability for whatever reason. The other opinion is that it isn't necessary and multiple articles written about the person directly with regards to their death are enough. Both of these seem to be supported by policy and therefore they are both valid arguments IMHO. Unfortunately, since neither side seems to agree with the other, it basically comes down to determing if there is sufficient majority either way after giving sufficient time for debate which isn't ideal since we're supposed to achieve proper consensus (i.e. all who understand policy agree) but isn't uncommon either Nil Einne 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Deletion - Why was this article blanked? "...played a pivotal role in establishing the first Francophone school in the region...." - Not notable?! "...Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion made special mentions of Couture-Nowak.. Nova Scotia Premier also made special mention...in particular spoke of her contribution to the francophone community with her key role in the development of École acadienne in Truro." - Doesn't this count for anything? "...Virginia Tech has established the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak Scholarship, awarded to French majors annually. The Nova Scotia Teachers College has also established a scholarship fund..." -Isn't any of this notable? How about the fact that she is one of only four professors
ever killed in a school shooting? Clearly she is a significant person... even before her part in the VT tragedy. User2006
-
- I'm confused and not sure what your point is. She surely isn't one of four professors ever killed in a school shooting (see here). Not that it's too important, I just thought you may want to reword/reconsider your implication. María (habla conmigo) 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I do not believe most professors who are killed establish schools and receive special mentions by Prime Ministers and regional premiers. Nor are most murdered professors the subject of multiple reliable, independent sources. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- That wasn't what I was questioning, though your point is taken. I was confused as to User2006's assertion that Couture-Nowak was "one of only four professors ever killed in a school shooting," which is obviously incorrect. I had asked for a clarification as to this statement, but it seems that another user has stricken the word "ever" out, so I suppose the question is now irrelevant. María (habla conmigo) 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion. No concensus to delete was reached prior to closure; and also per Black Falcon's comments to wit: "there is no requirement that topics be notable inside or outside of certain objects or contexts. A topic is notable simply if it has been the subject of multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject." --Yksin 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If we want to continue the basic WP principle that notability depends primarily on the availability of sources, then we must overturn. IIt looks like many of us do not really mean that, that rather we mainly rely on some idea of what it means to be notable, and we judge on that basis. (If I were to judge on that basis, she does meet my idea of N, for that aspect of notability which means general public interest.) But for those who still use sourcing as the criterion, she unquestionably meets them. If there is anyone who really thinks sourcing primary and thinks that she is not notable, I'd like them to explain why the sourcing is inadequate. DGG 03:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment WP:BIO clearly dismisses incidental coverage - despite the amount of it, it still is incidental. PrinceGloria 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn deletion. This is certainly not your typical DRV. We can clearly see that consensus was not met in the AfD. The cached article clearly shows that all the criteria of WP:BIO was met. It is obvious that she is notable even before her involvement in VT. To quote BlackFalcon, "I do not believe most professors who are killed establish schools and receive special mentions by Prime Ministers and regional premiers." Per DGG, she clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY. Helpfuluser 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Helpfuluser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Prime Ministers and other officials are kind enough to mention many people in their speeches, but I believe that such a mention is not a sufficient claim to notability, especially that the mentions resulted directly from her involvement in a publicized event and nationality, and not her accomplishments on her own (which does not change the fact that the Prime Minister, other officials and the media where kind enough to mention whatever accomplishments they could purport to her). Please also note the "instrumental in establishing" clause - it is rather a nice way to declare somebody's involvement in a cause, it does not mean that she single-handedly founded the school (which might not be enough to establish notability anyway). I mean, if she was sooooo notable before the massacre, why wasn't anything substantial written on her? PrinceGloria 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, "Instrumental in establishing" was a rather nice way of saying it --nice and humble that is. Many notable and worthy news sources even hold that she "founded", "established", "opened", etc., implying that she is the founder. For instance, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation says "Jocelyne Couture-Nowak established a French-language school in Nova Scotia"[7]. The Toronto Star also says the she established the school.[8]. I believe that even if she had died of natural causes, many articles about her would have been written and she would have still gotten a special mention in Parliament from Canada's head of state. Also we would probably also know more about her had she died a later date, when her school is flourshing. I don't think that this is any time to start downplaying someone's achievements. Someone who makes an impact in preserving one's culture is notable. Sincerely, Helpfuluser 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- As concerns the news item, I find it rather unlikely that the nature of her involvement was incorrectly stated at first as lesser than it really was, the other way around might have been likely. I believe the story you have quoted contains some distorted account of whatever they found in the previous stories in other media. That said, even if Mme Couture-Nowak actually did single-handedly found the school, I still fail to see how this is a reason to declare her notable, as, AFAIK, nobody bothered to report on that back then. So, if she did something noble, but not notable, she still is not notable. And, with all due respect, whatever you or I think might have happened to her had she died of natural causes is irrelevant here. PrinceGloria 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I cannot understand this insistence that she must have acquired notability during a certain timeframe. Why? A lot of currently famous artists did not become notable until after their deaths. Requiring that she have become notable before her death instead of after is no more or less ridiculous than requiring that she become notable between her 30th and 36th birthday. Notable is notable, regardless of when or where or why it happened. She is the subject of multiple sources ... that proves that she is notable. The fact that she founded a school and was mentioned by a PM is just extra! And by the way, I'd like to contest your statement that "Prime Ministers and other officials are kind ...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
- The subject's "claim to notability" is the media coverage of her life which, as explained above, is only incidental and as such does not qualify under WP:BIO. OTOH, her "founding" of the school might have been understood as a "claim to notability", had it been notable in itself e.g. by having been extensively covered by the media, if by nothing else - hence the confusion concerning the "moment in life". PrinceGloria 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- That coverage is not incidental. A one-sentence passing mention in a book or news article ... that's incidental! An entire article devoted to covering her life is not incidental. This whole framework of "claims to notability" is hopelessly subjective. We should not attempt to evaluate claims to notability ... we should only attempt to prove that a topic is notable by showing that others have written about it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- To me, this type of coverage IS incidental, in that it covers the topic only as an extension to the main story. This only emphasizes the need to further define what is, and what isn't "trivial or incidental" coverage by secondary sources.
As concerns "claims to notability", I used this catchphrase to illustrate my train of thought - I mean, every subject has to pass under one or another notability criterium (or perhaps a few at the same time) to be included in an encyclopedia. I called passing a criterium a "claim to notability". I hope I did explain myself clearly now. PrinceGloria 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I understand what you're saying. Still, I don't consider the coverage incidental (or trivial) because it was about her life and not just her death during the shooting. As for the second part, I think that "the presence of multiple reliable sources" is the only valid, objective criterion. The fact of having caught the attention of others (in terms of published works), rather than substantive accomplishments in one's life (judgment of which is inherently subjective), is what matters. I hope I've clarified my opinion as well. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I hope that in cases like that common sense should take precedence - even if a subject would seemingly be able to clear the guideline according to its letter, but it would really be unencyclopedic to do so, then it means that the guideline has to be amended - after all, but the five pillars of WP, all other can and should be changed.
That said, if you'd look at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, there at least a few sources for every victim. I have no time to browse them and assess how in-depth they are in coverage of the individual victims, but if we deem this person "notable", we might also be forced to concede that quite a few of the victims were notable - I am sure the press did pick up on more stories if they only could get some info on a person. PrinceGloria 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Common sense is not nearly as common as it's made out to be. Intelligent people can and do disagree with each other on any range of issues. I think I've stated elsewhere that I'm not strictly opposed to a selective merge to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (as long as it is done through consensus), but I also don't want to make this a rerun of AfD. DRV should mostly restrict itself to the validity/appropriateness of the closing decision. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that the AfD produced a consensus to delete the article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the truth is that most AfDs are closed at a state of "rough consensus" rather than clear, unanimous consensus, as the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators instructs. I do believe that given the valid arguments presented, the closing admin had every right to assume the "rough consensus" was to delete. PrinceGloria 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding your first point: I noted that there was no consensus to delete, but will readily admit that there also was not a clear consensus to keep. In such cases, the final decision should be "no consensus" in order to allow for continued discussion on the article's talk page. Regarding the validity of the arguments, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree in this case. I view the arguments to delete to be rather weak as they are based in subjective and disputable interpretations of "notability", an insistence that the subject have acquired notability during a certain timeframe ... and not a moment too soon or late
:) ... and WP:IAR, which I suggested but no one seems to have taken up. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that the base assumption adopted by the "delete" side was that the subject has NOT acquired notability, due to the media coverage being an insufficient reason to purport its notability and no other valid reason to declare the subject notable. As concerns the timeframe - the actual time is irrelevant, it has just been noted that the death in a mass killing and subsequent incidental (I will abstain by my definition of incidental) media coverage is not a reason in itself to declare the subject notable, while it would perhaps be different if the subject's notability had been established by some events during her life, which wasn't the case either, so the subject was declared not notable. PrinceGloria 04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that is an accurate presentation of the arguments for deletion. And where I disagree is in the discrimination against "media coverage" on the basis that it is "incidental". In my view, non-trivial coverage is non-trivial coverage, irrespective of the source and of when or why it occurred. That said, though neither of us seem to be inclusionists (I can only speak for myself), I think the fact of our being at odds on this issue belies a deeper disagreement about the nature of how "notability" should be defined and how the guideline ought to be applied to individual cases. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I guess I would have no probs with being declared a "deletionist", as I believe that in view of the ever-increasing popularity of Wikipedia as a medium one can actually add to, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE becomes one of the most important WP rules. The disagreement, however, emphasizes the shortcomings of notability guidelines, and I guess it would make a very good to case to promote amending them. Coming back to the AfD - most of the people in favor of deleting it expressed the belief that the person should not be included based on whatever is known about her, and that WP:MEMORIAL would apply, if more in spirit than letter. I guess this might be seen as a case of WP:IAR and more specifically, WP:UCS to override the explicit wording of some guidelines, but it still is valid. If guidelines are faulty at the time of the creation of the article, it should not benefit the article, but rather be a reason to amend them. PrinceGloria 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the guidelines ought to be amended based on our desire to see a few particular articles included or excluded. Your argument is that because the guidelines suggest that the article ought to be kept, they are therefore faulty. I, on the other hand, argue that the guidelines are fine ... and the desire to see the article deleted is faulty. WP:MEMORIAL is technically inapplicable as the article's subject met the notability guidelines. If we were to consider its spirit rather than just the letter, I still do not think that this would qualify ... memorials point out the great things about a person, emphasising the positive and downplaying the negative. Such an article would violate WP:NPOV. However, the article that was deleted was written neutral and based in the available sources. As I noted a few comments above, it's probably best not to invoke WP:UCS in this case as at least half of the people involved in this debate disagree with the rationale to delete; I don't think you'd want to imply that they lack common sense. As for WP:IAR, I don't view the inclusion of this article to be contrary to the goal of "improving" Wikipedia. It's a well-sourced article ..., so what's the problem? When in doubt (i.e., when there is no consensus), I feel it's best to err on the side of caution. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- (reset indent) Actually, I have no problems with acknowledging that at least a fair share of the users advocating keeping were doing so not based on common sense, but rather their emotions, including arguments such as "but she was the only Canadian!", "but it was on TV!" and my personal favorite, "For the love of God!" (I am actually thinking whether we should establish WP:FtloG). I really believe we should employ WP:UCS here to override the faulty wording of a guideline (please remember that only this loophole in WP:BIO allows the subject to evade WP:MEMORIAL), and adhere to the first, "blue" pillar of Wikipedia, i.e. the one that states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information.
I strongly believe that not everything covered by the media has its place in an encyclopedia, and just as we did not include many individual victims/survivors of 9/11 not notable in their own right (I guess many of them were written about extensively, and some even featured in TV/film documentaries, partially thanks to the snowballing effect - I can point to Elaine Duch as one that I particularly remember being extensively featured to the point that I recall her name to this day), we should not make an exception for Mme Couture-Nowak. If we would, we would set a precedent, and then we should go back and include each and every victim of a tragedy that has been featured in the media in a more extesive way. I know this is more based on subjective interpretation than written rules, but I believe that in view of the general nature of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, such approach does make more sense than strictly adhering to the letter of a guideline that might be amended in due course. PrinceGloria 06:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- You present an honest and convincing argument, though I believe it suggests merging rather than deletion to be the optimal solution. At the risk of repeating myself (I think I've already stated this on a talk page), I'll note that I fully support a merger of this article. I think a 2- or 3-sentence mention in the main article or the list of victims article would be sufficient in this case. I don't think creating a loophole in WP:BIO that allows deletion of these articles is necessary or desirable; selectively merging the content of such articles to appropriate targets is less problematic and also less controversial. I suppose that makes me a mergist, though I could also be classified as an AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD-ist. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you :D Now, I guess it really isn't important where we fit within Wikipedian classification, so let me pass on continuing with this topic... Now, as concerns merging - actually, there is a 2- or 3-sentence mention of Mme Couture-Nowak within the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, which IMHO summarizes all that there is to be said about her. I think this means that effectively the merger has been realized in a way. OTOH, deletion review cannot end in a merge, it is only about overturning or sustaining the decision made in the AfD process. So, if you believe there is no reason to keep the article separate as it was and the current content of the abovementioned "umbrella" article is satisfactory, I do not think there is a reason for you to request the decision to be overturned.
As concerns whether the current state of WP:BIO provides for a loophole for creating articles that should not be created, and which needs to be fixed, or the other way around - I guess this is a matter for discussion in the policy's talk page. PrinceGloria 07:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the snippet in the list of victims article is rather short, considering that she was notable on her own. However, the length of a paragraph in an article is not an issue to hash out at deletion review. Despite the fact that I find merging to be an acceptable solution, I must still insist that the decision made at AfD be overturned, for three reasons. First, although I may find a merge desirable, the dozens of other editors who recommended keeping the article may not. Second, DRV is about the appropriateness of the close more than the pros and cons of an article, and I do not believe there was a consensus to delete the article. Thus, the close was inappropriate and should be overturned. Third, despite all claims to the contrary, precedents do matter to some extent. I don't think it's right to establish a precedent of deleting such articles (particularly in the absence of consensus to do so), when the option of merging exists. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do note that actual consensus for deleting an article is a very rare case in AfD. In most cases, it is a "rough consensus", consisting in the admin using his best judgement to decide which arguments to ignore, which override others etc. As the decision consisted in exactly such process (as recommended by Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators), I believe it was entirely valid. PrinceGloria 10:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn because of notability concerns, and agreeing with Oakshade, SqueakBox 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn per Oakshade. The closing admin did not explain on the AfD why they thought the article should be deleted, but the people arguing in favor of keeping seemed to make more coherent arguments than the people arguing for deletion. Oakshade's references show this person passes notability guidelines, and the article does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Johntex\talk 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - just as a sidenote, the nature of Mme Couture-Nowak's involvement in founding the Ecole acadienne de Truro is perhaps best explained here: [9]PrinceGloria 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding your side note. That is one example of different information. We could get into a long discussion about which news source is right... or even what the majority of news sources are saying. I think that Canada's biggest news organization (CBC), is the most credible in a situation like this. I think we are splitting hairs here. Is the result of this discussion going to be based on which news source is right? I don't think so. I think what is most important (and being avoided) is, that she has been the subject of many worthy sources for her contribution to culture and the role she played in a tragedy. Helpfuluser 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion One of the express purposes of establishing notability is to ensure "a person or related group of people has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view" {emphasis mine). I submit that there is no possibility of a NPOV concerning this subject, none of the sources presented are NPOV, and if all the POV statements (quotes) were removed, there would remain about a paragraph of content. This latter point (no content) is because all the "many" sources are repetitions of the same scant biographical details--not "intellectually independent" WP:BIO Note 6. This lack of depth (all articles cover the same "high-points", little to no additional material) renders the sources "trivial" (WP:BIO Note 3). ... My deepest sympathies. Wysdom 07:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is a non-sensical arguement. Charging that the long stories about this topic by the 3rd party reliable sources of the Canadian Press[10], Radio Canada[11], CBC News[12][13], The Toronto Star [14], The Globe and Mail[15], The Gazette (Montreal)[16], The Daily News (Halifax)[17], The Roanoke Times[18], Halifax Chronicle-Herald[19], all wrote non-point-of-view pieces about this topic is far-fetched to say the least. That's quite an attack on not only the reporters and editors who compiled all of these published works, but the fundamental Wikipedia guidelines on what are published works by reliable sources. None of these were NPOV editorials not not mention most of these are extensive in-depth pieces about the topic and not the "scant" NPOV stories you charged. (I've never seen so many reliable sources charged with NPOV before at one time). And the WP:BIO "Note 3" you referenced makes it explicitly clear of its definition of "trivial": "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." I don't know what articles you were looking at, but none of these are a "directory listing" or a "mention in passing" and all of them discuss the subject in detail. {emphasis mine) --Oakshade 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Uh....huh. Oakshade, if I weren't assuming good faith, I'd think you very selectively read, or deliberately misread, my statement so that you could have that little rant--to which you would have been semi-entitled if I'd said anything even remotely like the publications themselves were unreliable. If you go back and read every word instead of every other, you'll find that I said: "I submit that there is no possibility of a NPOV concerning this subject, none of the sources presented" (which does NOT refer to the publication, but to the article therein and ITS sources) "are NPOV, and if all the POV statements (quotes) were removed, there would remain about a paragraph of content." Allow me to parse that for you: there is no possibility of a NPOV concerning this subject I don't see how that's even an arguement. The woman was recently murdered. She was a good person, by all accounts, and widely loved. No one--but NO ONE--is going to publish anything but good things about her. And before anyone flames me to a charcoal briquette--THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE! HOWEVER, such fond memorials of a cherished wife, mother and mentor are /inherently/ POV. What makes them POV? NOT the reporting/journalism or the publication, but the sources--the quotations from all those who remember her fondly: co workers, family, friends, students, neighbours, etc. And as I said and if all the POV statements (quotes) were removed, there would remain about a paragraph of content. I noted quite explicitly that I was refering to the quoted sources/persons in the articles. Those persons/sources are--right or wrong--biased. Nor should it be otherwise: They loved and recently lost her. It is, however, POV, plain and simple.
Also from WP:NOTE, "In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources." Since the articles source solely from the people who knew and cared for Mme. Couture-Nowack AND quote them extensively, what you're left with (after removing the POV quotations) is a laundry list of biographical facts that mirror one another--neutral, but redundant. Since the articles all report the same information from the same angle, they do not satisfy as having a "depth of content". Pick your favourite one, and that's a single source. (WP:NOTE #3: "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources").
Now come down off your high horse, if you please. It's one thing to mount an attack on flawed logic; quite another to invent flaws so you can attack. @Others: Apologies for the long-windedness. Wysdom 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wysdom, you're the one screaming (using all caps), so perhaps you're the one who needs to calm down your ranting.
You seem to be saying that if no reliable source reports, or you don't think they'll ever report, something disparaging or scandalous about someone, that someone is suddenly non-notable and not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, this despite being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. I don't know if you're familiar with the fundamentals of journalism, but sources are the basic principles for reporting current events. Reporters and editors know better than you or I of what is a "reliable source" on the stories they're writing and it's fundamental to their profession to ensure everything is accurate and unbiased. That's why Wikipedia makes the wise choice to accept news outlets, like the many that wrote published works about Mme. Couture-Nowack, as "reliable sources." If you are upset that about the people these reporters choose as their sources (friends, co-workers, family, etc.) and they didn't dig up "dirt" on Mme. Couture-Nowack , that's your opinion. But that in no way makes her non-notable or negates the fact this person is the subject of multiple published work by reliable sources. And you haven't seemed to have actually read all of the articles written about his person. If you have, you'll find the reports about this person very in-depth and varied; her upbringing, her schooling, her being instrumental in creating a school, her commitment to French, her teachings, her personal life and her untimely death. All the details of these are far more than the "paragraph of content" as you so presumed. We've always been off our horses. Time for you to do the same. --Oakshade 02:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- There was no "screaming", Oaktree, de facto or implied, but I regret that you took it as such. The caps (and I don't think they were excessive or abusive) were for emphasis, nothing more, just like italics and boldface--though it does reflect some haste on my part, not using markup. Anyhow, I knew I'd regret not belabouring the point by explaining in excruciating detail that I wasn't looking for "dirt" or yellow journalism--I'm not surprised you went there, but I'm disappointed, as it's a pretty low insinuation. I think I made it perfectly clear that I feel the reporting and sources are appropriate--in fact, I think I "screamed" it, did I not? "That is how it should be"? They're appropriate for memorial, rememberance, and marking the passing of a woman who was well-loved. But the sources aren't NPOV. Period. They weren't meant to be, and that's fine--just not for purposes of Wikipedia. Convenient how you once again ignore and fail to address how the mulltiple published works are redundant--yes, they bring up all the things you listed. All of them. The same things, without adding anything new. Ergo, "not intellectually independent", "journals publishing simultaneously about the same occurence". You don't have multiple sources, Oakshade--not by the definition used in WP:NOTE--and since you can't do anything but fall back on "look how many!" and make transparently manipulative attempts to demonize your critics, I think you know it. Wysdom 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't want to get too involved, but would like to note that sources don't have to be NPOV. It is articles that must be neutral. POV sources may be used, if they are used with care and balanced. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Black Falcon, you're quite right. That's the trouble, though. These articles aren't balanced--and lest I be accused of wishing the press to drag Mme. Couture-Nowak through the mud, I'll restate: nor should they be. Her life should be celebrated, not investigated. Unfortunately, though, that makes sourcing an article problematic. Wysdom 05:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wysdom... just for clarity's sake: I believe that wehen Black Falcon wrote that "it is the articles that have to be neutral" he was referring to the Wikipedia article as opposed to the news articles. I believe that there is a major difference in how the news articles and the Wikipedia article were written. For example, the Wikipedia article before its deletion had no warm and fuzzy remembrances and was strictly factual in its content, and yet managed to provide an article of considerable depth. Helpfuluser 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict. Response to Wysdom) There's no arguing with you and your misunderstanding of WP:NOTE and WP:Reliable sources as you seem to completely believe yourself. But all I will respond to is what is most telling...
Oaktree.
While I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed. It's always indicative that somebody is losing an argument when they resort to name-calling.
I'm done responding to you. --Oakshade 04:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- O.o ... >.< ... o.O Of... course you are. *long pause* Pardon me while I try to reconcile the sanity-rending irony of your deep offense that I accidentally mistyped your username (since when is "tree" name calling? I happen to /like/ trees...) after your charming and intentional indictment of my character ("If you are upset that... these reporters... didn't dig up "dirt" on Mme. Couture-Nowack , that's your opinion.") I'm glad we're done--you have, in fact, rendered me speechless. Wysdom 05:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ms. Couture-Nowak was instrumental in the opening of the École acadienne de Truro, Nova Scotia in 1997, which grew to be a centre for Truro's fledging francophone community, according to the Globe and Mail.. She, Heather Parker and Nicole Bagnell lobbied the local education department for months, culling voters' lists and phone books to contact local francophones and inform them that the Canadian Charter of Rights guaranteed them minority education rights. [20].--Beth Wellington 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question I noticed that Mme. Couture-Nowak's article page has this text: "...this page has been temporarily restored and protected with this message in place. If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history." However, in checking the history, I could not find that text of the article that was previously available. Is there a way people can still view this article? I am sorry I really don't know how things work here, but I am just assuming that it is supposed to be available for viewing, at least in some way. 64.69.105.10 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- After clicking the history tab, click on the "View logs for this page" link just below the title. That provides the history of any deletions, restorations, or protections of the page. Here's the direct link. Although the history is available for viewing by anyone, the actual text of the article is not available except to editors who possess sysop privileges (i.e., who may delete and undelete articles). Hope that helps, Black Falcon (Talk) 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I pity the admin who will have to dig through all that to close... Now, I have so much to say, but I guess most of it was already said above in one form or another... It just occurred to me that it is good practice to start an article primarily explaining the subject's main "claim to notability", i.e. why is that it is in encyclopedia and therefore what is the most important thing a reader should know of it. E.g. Bill Clinton begins with "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (...) was the 42nd President of the United States..." Conversely, the article on Mme Jocelyne Couture-Nowak should probably begin with "Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was a French instructor born in Canada, written about by the media as a result of being a victim of the Virginia Tech massacre" - just some food for thought for those who believe that WP:UCS has no place here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prince Gloria (talk • contribs) 12:08, April 27, 2007.
-
- Regarding the above unsigned comment: I don't understand your reasoning. FIRSTLY, We know from many cases that many people are not recognized in their achievments until they die. We would not begin an article that begins, "...she was written about by the media as a result of dying." I don't know if this makes any sense or if I should use this reasoning, but I would posit that had she died at a later date of any other circumstance she still would have received the recognition and would have been the subject of many notable sources. IMHO, the fact that she died as one of four professors in the Virginia Tech tragedy only gives her added significance, especially considering the role she played in the tragedy (classroom with most fatalities, resistance to gunman, etc). SECONDLY, she was more than a "French instructor born in Canada". She is a person who contributed significantly to the French-Canadian culture (a subject of much importance in Canada these days). She was recognized by Canadian officials (Prime Minister, Premier) not as a result of being a French instructor or dying in the Virginia Tech Massacre, but as contibuting to culture with the development of the Ecole acadian de Truro. The scholarships that have been begun in her name (at the Nova Scotia Teachers College and at Virgina Tech, awarded to French majors) are not in place just because she died in the Virgina Tech massacre but most of all because of her dedication to her teaching and her significant role in the acadian culture. Cheers! Helpfuluser 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whoopsie - excuse me for not signing, I thought that would never happen to me... Now, with all due respect, this whole kerfuffle with purporting notability to Mme Couture-Nowak is rather ridiclous and disgusting. She was surely a lovely woman who cared about the Francophonie, but she was merely a very involved French instructor and one of three mothers who pushed for a French-language school to be opened in their town. Now, why would you believe she is any more notable than either of the other two mothers and other involved Canadian French teachers? She was obviously mentioned by Harper and the local Premier (was it MacDonald?) as a Canadian victim of the shooting, you would imagine the public outrage if they didn't issue any statement. And obviously, they tried to purport as much achievements to her as possible, you ismply do so at the person's death out of courtesy, plus they could earn some brownie points with francophone voters that way.
- As concerns scholarships in her name - there is a "Nathan S. and Mary P. Sharp" chair of Finance @ Kellogg/Northwestern - care to write an article on either of them? PrinceGloria 14:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
|
