Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. Krimpet (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was originally deleted through AfD. DRV overturned, for a variety of reasons, including concerns over lack of a closing rationale, and the possibly of the subject meeting WP:BIO for work within Canada. The article is resubmitted for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect - Does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF and just being the victim of a crime does not make one notable. Thow in WP:MEMORIAL for good measure. Same as for my previous view on the AfD. --StuffOfInterest 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect Only notability is the VT event, and notable info about her is already included in that article. Doesn't meet BIO since all coverage is incedental to the VT event and lacking in depth.  --Minderbinder 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I believe nothing changed since the last AfD, which resulted in deletion. This person is only "notable" because of media coverage of her as a Canadian victim of the massacre. I do not believe this is enough for her to be consider notable within the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines invoked. PrinceGloria 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) PS. Actually Minderbrinder said it better than me above...
 * I don't want to get into a long argument here again, I'll just reference the point above... But she's still "notable." --Oakshade 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. It does seem that Wikipedia does not have a very measured response to events like this. Perhaps things would be better if there were a presumption that a person who dies before becoming the subject of an article here should not have an article written about them until a year after their demise. BTLizard 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre is another option for a redirect. It seems to already contain all the notable info about her.  --Minderbinder 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Meets WP:BIO. Is the primary subject of multiple 3rd party non-trivial published works, like from the Canadian Press, Radio Canada,  The Globe and Mail The Gazette (Montreal), The Daily News (Halifax) and The Toronto Star . WP:MEMORIAL doesn't apply as it refers to non-notable people who don't fall into our standards (this isn't an article about someone's grandfather that has no published work about  them, not to mention multiple major national ones) and WP:PROF doesn't apply as she's not notable due to her academic achievements.  The article is highly referenced. --Oakshade 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've answered below, plus Edison's argument. Michael as 10 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BIO. Ms Couture-Nowak has been the subject of multiple reliable sources that are independent of her and intellectually independent. The arguments for deletion are based in a subjective notion of "inherent notability". As editors, we shouldn't make that judgment, as it violates No original research. If others consider a topic "worthy of note" by writing about it, then we have proof that it is notable; in this case, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was deemed "worthy of note" by various sources.
 * I also cannot understand the insistence that she must have acquired notability during a certain timeframe. Requiring that she have become notable before her death instead of after is no more or less absurd than requiring that she become notable between her 30th and 32th birthday. Notable is notable, regardless of when or where or why it happened. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The ultimate question for me on an AfD, when BLP or privacy-related issues are not involved, is whether having a given article makes us a better encyclopedia. In this case the answer is yes. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Virginia Tech Massacre and the list of victims. She played a part in the tragedy and should be appropriately mentioned in the main article. But Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the article is largely a memorial page:"..had a deep love for children..proud French Canadian.." Although she was an instructor, the article does not satisfy WP:PROF. Being mentioned in news stories does not automatically confer notability, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news magazine. See the essay WP:NOTNEWS which gives the views of several editors on this issue. Also see note 3 of WP:N "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Edison 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Virginia Tech Massacre. We shouldn't rely on those reports as the reason for keeping the article. If this person is notable, so is basically every 9/11 victim who received an extensive media coverage due to reaction to his death or the way he died. We have previously deleted (see archived debates) several such articles regardless of apparent media coverage, and I would normally foresee a similar result here. Furthermore, if all biographies on Wikipedia are constructed to only focus on major aspects of notability, this one would contain the sole sentence: "Jocelyne M. Couture-Nowak (1958 - April 16, 2007) was an instructor of French in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia and was a victim of the Virginia Tech massacre". Either continuing to her personal life as a non-notable teacher, or focusing the entire article on the way she died, would be entirely unencyclopedic. I believe this is a good example when we should ignore all rules and simply apply common sense. Michael as 10 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Common sense" tells us to have articles on people who are noteworthy, irregardless of the rationale for such note. If you have to quote IAR in a deletion discussion, there mustn't be much else to stand on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * She isn't noteworthy, her death is, and I don't see any particular reason why we should leave a non-noteworthy biography lying around. Common sense tells us a mere mention of her on the main massacre article would satisfy. Michael as 10 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * She has become noteworthy due to the circumstances surrounding her death. With your logic, Don Young should be mentioned in United States House of Representatives because he's only noteworthy due to his office.  That, of course, would be absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The circumstances surrounding her death aren't a good reason to include her entire biography — I'd avoid repeating myself. She deserves a mention under the "Attacks" section or the massacre timeline, which would sufficiently outline that. Michael as 10 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable through multiple independent references. --Eastmain 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Michaelas. I think you have to think about it this way: if she was not a victim of the shooting, would there be an article on her, ever? My answer would be no. She is not a professor, hasn't had any major academic contributions, and furthermore there would have been no verifiable sources.  Look at all of the sources right now - there is not a single one that is NOT related to the Virginia Tech massacre. Thus, her notability is completely dependent on the Virginia Tech event, and her role in that is more incidental, unlike the shooter.  Like any of the students who don't have any serious academic notability, being a victim alone is not enough to warrant an article. Tejastheory 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per every other comment that has been used on every other AfD in relation to this massacre. Rock star  ( T/C ) 18:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Oakshade. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, does not meet WP:PROF, and the sources about her are incidental - incidental sources do not confer notability by themselves. If there are other sources that show notability for something other than the massacre, then they should be presented, but otherwise being a victim alone is not sufficient for notability, see Articles for deletion/Reema Samaha and Articles for deletion/Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan (though the closing admin should not use these as any sort of precedent). --Core desat 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, because influential educator and one of only a few victims in a historic and record-breaking tragedy. Article has a determined readership, is relevant in a media sense, and is easily reference.  Really bad faith nomination for deletion.  I'm really disappointed to see this one here.  --24.154.173.243 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad faith nomination. --Core desat 22:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- as someone with multiple, independent sources documenting her life; the WP article has 11 references. An article in the Washington Post with her name as the title is not incidental. --Myke Cuthbert 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Note however, that there have been no articles about her independent of the Virginia shootings. Everything referenced so far has been articles written a few days after the event, either directly about the event, or memorializing her after death.  In life, I don't think she did anything that would warrant enough notability, and as I've argued elsewhere, in her death as a purely incidental victim she is not notable enough. Tejastheory 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comment, and I agree that almost everything comes from the VT shootings. However, I don't think that whether the subject did anything to warrant notability is an issue, she is notable.  If we needed to decide who deserved to be notable, I think some people would want to remove porn stars, others athletes, others medieval musicologists (okay, I'm the only one who cares about them), and everyone would agree on Paris Hilton.  But notability is largely decided off of Wikipedia, and we should report on it.  Further, WP:MEMORIAL applies to what WP is not, not what major newspapers are not.  If large news sources choose to publish a major obit., then that is notable.  Thanks again for the comment--I'm glad that this discussion has largely been civil.  --Myke Cuthbert 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is there a criterion whereby Jocelyne Couture-Nowak is deleted by Seung-Hui Cho is not? Everything referenced so far has been articles written after the event; nothing he did in life before the VT shooting was notable.  Obviously I don't think the latter article should be deleted, but I do think that many of the arguments against the JC-N article could apply to his as well.  --Myke Cuthbert 03:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and Seung-Hui Cho is their role in the event. Couture-Nowak's role, as a victim who simply happened to be there, is incidental, and all the notable information about Nowak (i.e. killed in the shooting, and maybe her actions) can be easily contained in the victims page.  Cho, on the other hand, had the major, or even defining role in the event, as the perpetrator.  It would be impossible to include all of Cho's relevant information into the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tejastheory (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Strong keep, clearly meets WP:BIO. Everyking 22:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My feelings on this are conflicted but keep in mind that all the notable portions of her biography are tied to the fact that see was killed in the VT killings. NeoFreak 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Here we go again :-/ I stand by all my previous comments on this article. Uhm, what can I say... she participated in the establishment of some school somewhere in Canada, allright. Doesn't meet WP:BIO IMHO. Then she got shot and died like the 31 other victims, that's it. I'm not sure what the "keepers'" rationale is. Clearly, a lot of Canadians feel that their country deserves to be represented in this well-covered incident. I strongly disagree with those who say that the fact that she has been mentioned in other (Canadian) media, is enough reason for inclusion. And saying that AfD on this is "bad faith" is about as good as those who said that deleting Waleed Shaalan was "islamophobia" and "white supremacy". Medico80 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that being the primary subject of published works by multiple reliable sources in only Canada means this topic isn't notable? (By the way, the American Associated Press wrote a piece about her that ran in the Washington Post and the British The Guardian ) --Oakshade 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, she is mentioned being a victim, one among others, nothing else. Medico80 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These two American stories are primarily about Mme Jocelyn Couture-Nowak and her life, not the other victims. But do you feel that if only Canadian outlets had published works about this person, the topic isn't notable? --Oakshade 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. If there had been a victim from my country, our local media would be all up in arms as well. I know from the blogosphere that there has been local focus on the Egyptian and Indonesian victims too. I guess all victims have been mentioned by their hometowns' newspapers, mayors and soforth. Medico80 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything against the sources, but I see a problem when you look at the sources and they are ALL related to the Virginia Tech event. She does not seem to have any verifiable notability outside of her relation to that one event, and her role in that one event was nearly incidental.  If the media wants to sensationalize and make heroic stories about people, that's fine, but not everything the media reports on is notable. Tejastheory 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Arguements citing "multiple sources" are extremely misleading. WP:NOTE: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. This--a lack of intellectual independence in the "multiple sources" cited--is clearly the case, here. Wysdom 00:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What are the same exact few sources that every reporter/author in all 20 of the published works cited used to write their stories? --Oakshade 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. But do a clean-up. Canadian media considered her death to be notable. The less notable elements of the article can be edited out. Canuckle 00:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- here is a more extended rationale---
 * From WP:BIO "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." True, but:
 * "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." I think the coverage has been fairly superficial, being a recitation of the facts of her life, ie obituary-like; but:
 * "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There are multiple sources, yes; but:
 * "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." And therein lies the problem -- all of the articles written about Ms Couture-Nowak, while not "trivial", have been essentially obituaries stemming from the attention she received being a victim in the massacre, not based on Couture-Nowak's life itself: that is the definition of incidental. (The rest: "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable." Moot to this argument.)
 * In conclusion: Not for Wikipedia, should be moved to WikiBios, where the above criteria do not present a problem. Pablosecca 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that Mme Couture-Nowak's notability didn't stem from her death in the massacre, but the fact is the all the details reported about Mme Jocelyn Couture-Nowak's life and work by reliable sources are not incidental. The reliable sources were inspired to write these non-incidental details because of the shootings, but that in no way transforms all the details written about Mme Jocelyn Couture-Nowak's life to incidental .--Oakshade 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, I think you're conflating separate issues. The simple fact that we are in agreement that she would not have been a sufficient subject for an article entry prior to her death is a very strong indication of the incidental nature of the interest in her subsequent to the tragedy. Think about it: details are all we have when it comes to writing Wikipedia biographies. Separating them from the person is impossible and nonsensical. Converesly, Kevin Granata's entry was initiated by the event at VTech, and to that extent it was also "incidental", but once the topic was broached, it was possible to find reason to find him notable based upon his professional achievements alone. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Granata. This is why your sentence "The reliable sources were inspired to write these non-incidental details because of the shootings, but that in no way transforms all the details written about Mme Jocelyn Couture-Nowak's life to incidental" -- muddles the two issues: the details of her life are the details of her life, what is incidental is her notability. I hope this clears things up for you.Pablosecca 09:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well reeferenced and well citedChickenboner 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pablo, you've said all that needed to be said here. Thanks a lot! I guess there's no need to say anything more. PrinceGloria 02:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I must be repeating myself, but this well-referenced article passes both WP:BIO and WP:PROF by a landslide. Again, nominating this for AfD was ill-advised in the first place... Ranma9617 02:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Analysis. I truly hope Pablosecca's excellent reasoning will be accepted and there IS no more that needs be said. However, I deeply feel the "many sources" so many keep thumping on need to be addressed--it's an arguement that passes for the truth far too often, as very few (and I've been guilty of this) are inclined to slog through a deluge of links to examine their merit. This time I decided to slog through, and here's the skinny:


 * (apologies in advance for the length)


 * References (11--about 6 might be relevant)


 * Note: "Less notable/irrelevant" items are double-bulleted.


 * Ref 1. Med length article comprised mostly of the personal recollections of people from the subject's childhood hometown. Bio facts scant and redundant of other sources.


 * Ref 2. Link to the main page of the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. The only article which could be found on this domain was a exceedingly brief obituary--this does in fact establish the information cited, (who her husband was) but certainly not notability.


 * Ref 3. Pay-to-view article. Subject's name does not even appear in the "teaser" excerpt.


 * Ref 4. One of the "longer" articles; but likely all sourced from Ref 6. (down to the "matronly" comment).


 * Ref 5. Med-length biographical sketch--redundant facts.


 * Ref 6. Canadian Press reprint--poss. main source.


 * Ref 7. Gives detail about the "last moments" of the French class before reciting biographical notes made redundant by sources above. (This is about the shooting, not Couture-Nowack).


 * Ref 8. More details about the shooting of the French class. Fact it's cited to support (barricading the door with a desk) also cites Ref 7. Redundant. Barely mentions Couture-Nowack.


 * Ref 9. French class killings (redundant) with a brief roundup of Couture-Nowack bio at the end (all details redundant, save perhaps the mention of the NS Premier's condolences)


 * Ref 10. AFP blurb reprinted in Yahoo! News. Canadian Prime Minister laments "a Canadian" being among the dead. He doesn't even mention Couture-Nowack by name. Very brief bio details are redundant by sources above.


 * Ref 11. Press Release from the NS Premier's office. Facts are redundant, but the Minister of Acadian Affairs' quote could be used to assert notability.


 * External (in-line citation) links (3, w/1 duplication. Zero directly relevant, i.e. "About" the subject)


 * #1: NYTimes interactive maps of the shooting progression timeline. Couture-Nowack is mentioned once as the first to be killed in her classroom (graphic 12). No other details about subject.


 * #2: French class survivor's story, already reported in Refs 7,8,9--barely mentions Couture-Nowack.


 * #3: French class survivor blurb in "People" magazine--doesn't even mention Couture-Nowack's name.


 * #4: See #2--duplicate link.


 * Further reading (11 links: 5 reference duplications, 1 pay-to-view, 1 ratings site. 11 - 7 = 4):


 * 1. Comprised almost entirely of memorial quotations of family and friends--memories, emotions, subjective. Intersticed facts redundant.


 * 2. Duplicate of Ref 7.


 * 3. Duplicate of Ref 6.


 * 4. Duplicate of Ref 4.


 * 5. Reprint of CP article in Ref 9, but in French.


 * 6. Exceedingly brief memorial/article. Memorial quotes. Anemic bio facts, redundant.


 * 7. Another pay-to-view article. Content and merits/sources thereof inconclusive.


 * 8. Coverage of the funeral, reprinted from AP--all memorial.


 * 9. Redunant info, quotes culled from CP articles. In French.


 * 10. Reprint of CP article from Ref 6, in French.


 * 11. RateMyProfessors.com


 * In all, we're left with approximately 6 (unless one counts "Further Reading" as citations--then, about 10), not 20, possibly relevant sources--which can probably be honed down to about three CP or AP articles. Since someone's bound to argue "Just because they're reporting the same thing doesn't mean they're using the same source" or similar, I'll happily provide a point-by-point analysis of which sources (the ones that actually mention the subject) are likely the originals and what's drawn from them, where (on the article's talk page so as not to further clutter this forum).


 * Again, my apologies for the length.


 * Respectfully,


 * Wysdom 03:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - By examining only 6 of the published works written about this person (I was too tired to examine all 20) here's what's actually found about sources (links provided to editors can actually validate and judge for themselves). Of course, we can only know for sure which persons the reporters actually quoted as sources and anything that they wrote about the topic that wasn't attributed to one of these many sources can only be 100% speculation as to their orgins - ie it is impossible to know what their sources were for those un-attibuted reportings...
 * The NovaNewsNow article sourced co-classmate Bobby Lou Reardon and Boys and Girls Club worker Donna Barrett. This ChronicleHearald article sourced Virginia Tech professor Lloyd Mapplebeck, friend Claire Russell, spokespeople Stephanie Rogers and Richard Landry and the widow Jerzy Nowak (all different sources from the previous published work) The Washing Post article sourced former Nowak teacher and friend Heather Parker and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. (all different sources from the previous published works and unlike an editor's stipulation that Harper didn't mention Couture-Nowack by name, this Washington Post article reports "Harper made special mention of Couture-Nowak in a speech in Ottawa this week.") The 1st CBC News article sourced Claire Russell and Jerzy Nowak (both sourced in one of the previous articles) plus Nova Scotia francophone school board spokesman Richard Landry, Nova Scotia Agricultural College Vice President Bernie MacDonald, acquaintance Kathy Mills-LoBella, former student DeAnne Leigh Pelchat and a few other un-named former students. (4 (possibly more since more were un-named) of the at least 6 sources are different from the previous published works) The Toronto Star article sourced Virginia Tech French Department chair Richard Shryock, former students Amanda Bateman and Madigan Milford and Jerzy Nowak (the latter sources elsewhere).   (3 of the 4 sources are different from the previous published works) The Associated Press/Washington Post article quoted former student John Welch. (different from all the previous published works listed here)
 * So in just these 6 published works (I think most will agree that six is far passed the threshold of "multiple"), at least 17 sources were used and all of these published works used sources independent of the other 5. These certainly are "mulitple published works" that all sourced different people in their published works. Maybe tomorrow I'll examine the other 14. Goodnight.  --Oakshade 05:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect if we can't find a reference to her in the news or in academia before she was killed, as it appears is the case. Calwatch 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as argued by Pablosecca. One does wish to be generous in cases like this but sentimentality is not a reason to keep an article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly notable. oh and stop afding people because of death, we really need Moratorium for cases like this where the notability is related to death, but not caused by death, amongst other reasons of taste and public decorum. --Buridan 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything on "taste" in the WP guidelines, but thanks for the lecture... Medico80 12:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my comments on the original AfD. Thousands of people die every day, many of them in notable circumstances, but unless there's something particularly unusual about the victim, the article should be about the event and not the victim. There seem to be few if any reliable sources on her dating from before her death (sitting on the fence slightly here, as there may be more in the French language press); as I've said previously, WP:NOTPAPER isn't a carte blanche to create articles from every obituary in the paper, even if multiple obituaries are technically multiple independent sources —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How is she not notable? She has her own page on the New York Times Online, as well, she is mentioned in great detail in the Canadian Press (even though it's not cited in the article. The UserboxerComplain/ubx 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the above delete arguments, particularly Pablosecca's. Michael as 10 16:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Pablo's analysis above, which is spot-on. Eusebeus 15:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep after edits. There is some repetition of content, and the "Death" section is a bit too large—this should be edited. However, the article mentions the scholarships/bursaries, which is content not suitable anywhere else. Other than that, there is enough interesting and notable content unrelated to the massacre to make it worthy. (And no, I didn't voted "keep" for the other victims—just this article.) +mwtoews 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The crime was notable, but the victims were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, like passengers on a crashed plane or a boat sinking. That some of them took obvious steps to save their and others lives, like holding the door shut to keep the shooter from coming back in, is not a notable event anymore than handing someone on sinking boat a life jasket or pressing the stewardess call button when you saw the airplane engine on fire would be. Some of the victims got multiple trivial mentions in news stories for a few days, which does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N. Edison 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But multiple non-trivial published works primarily about this person, not the other victims, does pass WP:BIO and WP:N as there are multiple published works that are not just "passing mentions." Nobody is saying she didn't become notable due to the shootings, but she became notable nonetheless.  Notablity is not subjective. --Oakshade 21:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not incidental, either. All of the sources provided are incidental. --Core desat 05:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are focused in depth on the subject's life and work which are not incidental . Her notablity was inspried by an incident, but that doens't in any way make notability disappear.  That's why notability is not subjective.   --Oakshade 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Seriously, I'm sure a lot of people think they voted delete, but now their votes aren't here because someone overturned the deletion for what I think weren't good reasons. It doesn't meet WP:PROF, she isn't notable, she's simply someone who died. I think this is a prime example of recentism and emotion, not NPOV. I don't think it should have been overturned, and I didn't know until I actually read this discussion again that I had to vote on this again as I thought the matter was settled. This annoys me because its likely to get a disproportionate number of people who voted to overturn here and not a lot of people who voted already who simply think the discussion is ongoing. Wikipedia is not a memorial, lest we forget, and is not the proper place for an obituary. Titanium Dragon 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also, people above (Pablo) have pointed out probably better than I why she isn't notable; she is a no one who died in a massacre and all coverage of her is incidental. She wasn't and isn't important or notable. Titanium Dragon 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree with you in principle, but I find it inappropriate to refer to anybody, especially a rather nice person who recently died in tragic circumstances, as "no-one". PrinceGloria 22:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject of this article clearly meets the essential Wikipedia guideline for notability - "subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  She's been the subject of articles in national newspapers of two countries and the article is already well documented using multiple excellent sources. Unfortunately, some of the opponents here seem to be appealing to elitism rather than following Wikipedia guidelines for notability. BRMo 02:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. There is a statement in WP:BIO that strongly discourages the use incidental sources for showing notability. --Core desat 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only that most of the mulitiple published works about his person are not incidental. --Oakshade 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As Coredesat noted, WP:BIO says, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." However, Oakshade correctly observes that Couture-Nowak has been the main subject of several published articles in reputable sources. These articles do not constitute trivial or incidental coverage. This article clearly meets the core notability guidelines in WP:N and WP:BIO. BRMo 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsure/No vote yet - I want to see if she has completed any journals/studies regarding the French language. A part of me wants to keep this, but a part of me states not to. WhisperToMe 06:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BIO — Jonathan Bowen 01:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even stronger Keep per WP:BIO --172.162.73.121 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't add anything to the reasons above, subject's entry is predicated on her status as the only Canadian victim of a high profile crime (see WP:MEMORIAL), as to her other attributes, clearly fails WP:PROF. No one here has provided any more evidence than has been sufficient to retain countless other deleted articles of similarly non-notable academics. fishhead64 06:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Being notable in a specific country means the person is notable. Not giving coverage to someone because they're notable in a specific region and not the United States (or some other area of an editor's choosing) is exactly why the WikiProject Countering systemic bias was created.  --Oakshade 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue in question is not any "regional limitation", but the fact that there is little about the subject that would provide for her notability other than the media coverage, which was not induced by any personal achievements but rather nationality. PrinceGloria 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect/delete to the list of victims. Per WP:NOT, her tragic death is not grounds for notability, and Canadian media reports to get a share of the pathos cannot be used towards meeting WP:BIO.  As I noted when I started the first AFD, the only possible grounds for notability I see is "was instrumental in establishing the École acadienne de Truro, the area's first French language public school", but more context is needed on how important this is.  Given the fact that nobody seems to have reported this when it actually happened, it seems unlikely that this will help. - BanyanTree 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MEMORIAL does not apply as it refers to those who are not notable and wouldn't pass our guidelines as this person does. This isn't an article written about someone's grandpa who otherwise doesn't have multiple published works primarily about them and this person does. --Oakshade 15:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. For the second time, WP:MEMORIAL was a major part of the basis of the decision to disassociate http://sep11memories.org/wiki/In_Memoriam, the first Wikimedia project, from the Foundation.  Once it started, the goals of the WMF and the Sept 11th site were found to be incompatible.  Note that Septh 11th wiki was the place for bios of victims who weren't notable outside of the attacks, so even these weren't on Wikipedia.  It took years for this decision to happen, so let's not reenact the entire torturous process, and go by precedent: people who receive attention solely because of their victimization (and whose articles are not also the only place on the wiki in which a notable crime is described) do not meet the notability threshold.  - BanyanTree 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. This isn't about the 3000+ 9/11 victims.  It's about this specific person who's the subject mulitple non-trivial published works.  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."  The person passes WP:BIO so WP:MEMORIAL doens't apply.  --Oakshade 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're ignoring the years-long discussion that got rid of the first sister project to make your argument here? In case you don't remember, in the aftermath of 9/11 every newspaper wrote features on victims with a connection to the local town/region/country, and it was eventually decided that these news items could not be used in establishing notability. - BanyanTree 01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you seem to be employing a reverse-WP:POKEMON arguement (we deleted x, so we should delete y for the same reason) actually, there are quite a few of 9/11 victims who do have pages that appear to have far less in-depth published works written about them than Jocelyne Couture-Nowak does; Mario Luis Santoro, Edward P. Felt, Andrew Garcia, Richard Guadagno and Charles Edward Jones for examples (the latter was AfD'd and result was Keep). WP:BIO is about if a person is notable, not how. --Oakshade 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say most, if not all, of the articles you have mentioned should be deleted too, it is just that they somehow slipped by. As concerns WP:MEMORIAL, yes it does stipulate that the subject has to be notable (and I feel it is implied that the subject has to have "reasons for notability" beyond his or her death), and, according to WP:BIO, the available media coverage does not provide for the subject's notability in the Wikipedia sense (not to mention that it does not for sure in the common sense). PrinceGloria 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BIO, being the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources. This subject clearly passes that guideline.  By common sense, someone who has received so much media attention, for any reason, is without question notable. --Oakshade 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've said this a few times already, but also according to WP:BIO, incidental sources are not enough. The sources mentioned in the article came in the wake of the shootings - that makes them incidental. --Core desat 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The coverage of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak in these mulitiple independant published works are in depth articles about her life and work which are not incidental . The articles were inspried by the shooting incident but that doesn't transform all the articles written about this person "incidental." --Oakshade 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oakshade just doesn't get it, and maybe never will, that "being the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources" is not always enough. I tried to spell out the reason why it's insufficient here in my post above, but, you can lead a horse to water... Pablosecca 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case "being the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources" is more than enough. The primary criterion of WP:NOTE reads as follows (bold  and links not added by me but are included in the guideline page): "A  is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.."  If you choose to ignore our primary criterion because you don't like the reason the person is notable, you are free to do so but it is not in line with the core of our "notability" guidelines.  --Oakshade 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You still continue to selectively quote your prefered part of the guideline while ignoring the main criteria, but I won't argue with you. Michael as 10 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the primary criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. That's why they boldfaced it. As I've done throughout this AfD, I'm happy to discuss any sub-clause of any of the guidelines. --Oakshade 15:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect. The only thing notable about her is that she happened to be in the tragically wrong place at the wrong time. Her only notability--how she died--can be adequately covered in the list of victims article. Calliopejen1 13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep she seems noteworthy even without VaTech, and most definitely with it!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and Redirect to either the Virginia Tech massacre page or the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. If her work within Canada were notable, there would be multiple, reliable sources written about this work before she died.  However, every source in the article was written after her death.  This shows that she is notable for how she died, not for how she lived.  All the relevant information about her death either is or should be in the main page or the list of victims page.  There is no need for a separate page. --FreeKresge 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: FreeKresge even says "she is notable" in his delete recommendation, following it with the important caveat "for how she died." If this article is deleted I'm going to wonder where we can find a list of things that make a person notable but should be ignored.  Notable for killing = in, notable for being killed = out?  Will we have another list including "notable for being rock star = in; notable for marrying rock star = out"?  I thought that determining simply whether someone was notable was difficult enough without adding this second layer of interpretation.  --Myke Cuthbert 21:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I can't claim to speak for FreeKresge, I think he was a bit loose in his words. It's not that "she is notable for how she died", but rather "her notability comes from how she died".  I do not think she is notable, and I don't believe FreeKresge does either - what notability (note, having a level of notability does not make "notable") she does have is mostly by association with this event, and in this event her role was simply incidental - she just happened to be there, and the story would be no different if she just happened not to be in the building that day. Tejastheory 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with most of what Tejastheory said, particularly in the fact that there are levels of notability. I recognize that multiple sources have mentioned Jocelyne Couture-Nowak.  However, these sources mentioned her for only one reason, and other Wikipedia articles already cover that reason.  Therefore, this article is not necessary.  It is common for topics notable just because they are associated with one thing to be merged into the article on that thing.  For example,  WP:MUSIC says that if a musician's only claim of notability is  composing a theme song for a television show, the musician should just be  redirected to that show's page.  This is why I say that there should be a redirect.  The rock star example is very relevant.  WP:OUTCOMES says, "Family members of celebrities should generally be merged with the articles about celebrities themselves" so marrying a rock star would not merit a redirect, not a page of one's own.  Finally, AFD decisions are not supposed to be easy.  Easy decisions should be prodded.--FreeKresge 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hereby repeat my vote from last time (if that's not allowed, please strike this through): Delete Unlike with the other professors, I've not seen anything saying that she was the writer of lots of impressive papers, or the author of any impressive books, or the recipient of any impressive awards. I think some of my college professors are really amazing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're notable, and even if she were amazingly good she's not thereby made noteworthy. And no, the cause of her death doesn't make her inherently notable either. Nyttend 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now We do not want to be a repository of news stories. It is impossible to say for certain whether there will be lasting interest in this topic, as the event is only a couple of weeks old. However, my hunch is that there will be lasting interest, maybe in year-end retrospectives or on the anniversary of her death. Kla'quot 05:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect per all above. Wikipedia is not a memorial. GreenJoe 06:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete contents and redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Not notable prior to the incident, and shouldn't be notable just for being murdered. WWGB 06:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP When a Canadian is Mentioned at the time of their death in Parlement by the prime minister, it is a sign of their being notable, if the fact of her murder pushes her over the threshold of notability, so be it.  This is a person who has contributed to society in more then one sphere, in more than one country.  In the future it is likely that someone will be looking for this information, so it should be in the encyclopeadia.  There are places for this to be linked in the articles about Nova Scotia schools also. cmacd 14:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no objection to articles about people of relatively minor notability being kept provided that there is sufficient sourcing about their lives, or part of their lives, that it is possible to have a balanced article.  WIkipedia, after all, is not paper.  When someone has become notable primarily because of their death, as is the case here, the problem is that the coverage of them becomes unduely positive, because no one speaks ill of the dead, esp. when the death is as tragic as in the case of Dr. C-N.  In this case, I think, we have little choice but to delete, because a balanced article is impossible.  semper fictilis 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several people have expressed their *personal* opinion on whether *they* think this person is notable.  Those opinions are essentially worthless and irrelevant.  The question is whether she's been found notable by *external* reliable sources.  This is indicated by those sources writing about (.e.g. "noting") the subject non-trivial.  This has been done.  Whether she "earned" it, or had it while she was alive, or what the reasoning behind it, is not important.  Please, leave you personal opinions at home, and follow the sources.  For a long time, notability was used despite the complete lack of an agreed working definition.  But, since we have an actuall working definition for it in WP:N, we aught to actually use it. Also, this "redirect to list" nonsense is utter rubbish., and violates WP:NOT.  We're not a source of lists of people killed.  If there wasn't sufficient non-trivial coverage, then nothing should exist under the article title, not even a redirect.  Also, please read WP:MEMORIAL, before mentioning it.  That's for people known just to family and friends.  If people can just put aside their personal bias, and look and independent sources, and their coverage, this is pretty straightforward.  We can not function effectively if if AFD is about subjective tests.  That would mean, we delete articles based on whoever happens to show for AFD.  --Rob 06:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing with us, that your personal opinon is, that she is notable... Medico80 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for Rob I understand what you say, but the discussion for some of us is beyond the criterion for notability that you suggest, namely, that simply because a person is the primary subject of multiple sources, does not make them notable -- it's a subtle distinction which I think causes the confusion we see above. I have a post up above in which I describe this reasoning fully, but the gist is that there are times when people are covered for reasons not having to do with their own notability, when otherwise unremarkable people are focused-on, often by the group they represent (in Couture-Nowak's case French-Canadadian media etc), because of their unwilling participation in a notable event. I think that's the case here. Such coverage is properly termed "incidental", as WP:BIO clearly spells out. This is designed presumably to avoid victims' lists, and also to distance Wikipedia from the notion that notability is inherited, more or less speaking.  Obviously we must put our personal opinions aside -- and I for one am making no judgment call on the appropriateness of various Canadian (and other) news sources taking Couture-Nowak's death as a subject. My thought, which many share, is that she, in and of herself, was not accomplished enough to be deemed notable -- and that strictly speaking the focus she's received post-VTech is incidental to that tragedy.  Again, read my post way up above, in which I closely read WP:BIO. Of course, there are refinements on my reasoning. The entry for Megan Kanka comes to mind -- a poor girl who didn't live long enough to do anything notable, and who wouldn't have been in this encyclopedia were it not for the law inspired be her case, Megan's Law. Had an entry been written about Megan Kanka just by virtue of her death, it would probably have been unwarranted based on notability. Subsequent to the prominence of that legislation, she, being the sole victim, would have her notability raised.  As it stands, I and many others have, thus far, seen no reason to single out Couture-Nowak for a separate article. I welcome your comments. Pablosecca 08:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Commentof course, if we are just talking whether she deserves a separate article or not, then we already agree she is notable. then the second article issue is just one of layout and whether this informaiton is better provided on the original page or not.  I think that since it extents and improves on an agreed notable person from a single point of issue article to a richer article which covers more of her career, it should be separate. --Buridan 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We can agree that she is notable -- but that doesn't mean she is the "correct kind" of notable, if you will. Some of us feel that her notability is totally incidental to the tragedy, and therefore not meritorious of a separate article. Pablosecca 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Where are you getting "we agree that she is notable" from? Being part of a notable incident doesn't confer notability. Every soldier killed in Iraq has received press coverage; however, we have an Iraq War article without the need for an article on every soldier —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Commentif the debate is whether she is included with information or not, then it is a debate on notability, if the debate is whether her information is in x article or y article, then you already agree on notability and must be debating something else. I suspect you are merely debating your own preferences and not much about policy at this point. your iraq war argument is a non-sequitor, it does not follow this example.  I bet you do have articles from colonels and special cases that were notable, but were only added to wikipedia when their notability came to the attention of editors upon their publicized death.   --Buridan 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't try to set up straw-man arguments - I'm certainly not saying (and I don't think any of the other delete voters are saying either) that she should be "included in x article instead of y", and if we did we could have redirected it without going through an AfD. I do not believe we should have any information other than her name, as with Dunblane massacre and Columbine High School massacre, and probably no list of victims at all, as with Omagh bombing —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, no strawman there, just basic logic. either a or not a, and all that.   you can't say she is not notable and then say she is notable enough to be elsewhere.  either she is notable or not.  cause of notability is moot. if you want her in, then the only question is how, then it isn't an afd matter at all cause the notability is established, it is merely administrative decision of editors for whatever expediency exists.  if there is information not appropriate to another article, then the article stands alone but related to many articles, if it only relates to one article, then... it belongs on that article.  just logic of the policies.  ---Buridan 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Either a or not a" - that is the exact definition of a straw man! It is not a choice between "if she's notable then she gets her own article, if she's not notable then she doesn't deserve any mention at all".  As explained elsewhere, there are different levels of notability, and then somewhere in that is Wikipedia's standard of notability.  Most of the deletion voters have argued that she has notability - a low level of notability that is on the 'incidental' level, which is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standard for having an entire article dedicated to the subject.  However, this does not mean she does not have significance which pertains specifically to a single event (i.e. the Virginia Tech shootings) - she does (arguable) and so mentioning her on some sort of list of victims would be appropriate.  So yes, you certainly can "say she is not notable and then say she is notable enough to be elsewhere" Tejastheory 03:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, a straw man is when you make a claim such as, 'does not satisfy policy x' and then do not provide any reason or evidence. If you want to make an argument that there are many kinds of notability, just explain in detail your position, that is fine, the afd is about non-notability, and it looks like that argument has been given up on, as you says she is notable. Also note, that the article itself indicates significance beyond the greater event.  See, as this is an encyclopedia, and if the information on the article is of encyclopedic value, the person is notable, and everything is cited...  then it seems to me that the article is fine.  why isn't it fine?  be careful also with the issue of systematic bias, please. --Buridan 11:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a straw man - you're misrepresenting the arguments for deletion. It has never, EVER been "she gets her own article, or she doesn't deserve any mention at all" - that is a position that you made up and attempted to present as the choice.  I, nor any of the other delete arguments, NEVER said that she is notable for Wikipedia's standards.  There are levels of notability.  Heck, I've been covered in my city's newspaper once, and that gives me some level of notability.  Is that a level of notability high enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about me?  Hardly.  You should also detail exactly what you mean by "the article indicates significance beyond the greater event" - do you mean there is more information about Couture-Nowak than can be included in the Virginia Tech article?  I think as others have argued, not any of that other information is really significant.  If she were in a list of victims, the only pertinent information may be that she was an instructor, and was killed.  You should also explain what you mean by "systematic bias" before throwing that blind accusation out there. Tejastheory 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment systematic bias is that wikipedia tends to disregard humanities and social science notability much more than physical science notability, it tends to disregard significant social contributions such as the author of this article, in comparison to say a person that discovered the non prime roots of random large numbers can be resolved as constructs of primes.... (duh). that is one systematic bias, just like there is a systematic bias for effects by non u.s. citizens, where many contries are viewed more skeptically in these reviews because the reviewers of the afd are not willing nor ready to read french to find the notability.  ok... that happens, we just need to be careful of it.  This might be a case of that, I am not certain, but it is starting to seem it.  systematc bias is when notable contributions arising from periphery situations are considered non-notable. --Buridan 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment now, above, at least 2 different people say this person is notable in this thread, and i'm not included. there is no strawman there, if she is notable enough for article x, why is she not notable enough for article y?  --Buridan 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As said before, there are different levels of notability. Is the person notable enough that her name should be included in a list of victims?  Yes, most people agree on that.  That does NOT imply that she is notable enough to have her own article.  You are presenting a "X or Y" argument: if she has any mention in wikipedia, she deserves a full article; if she does not have a full article, she does not deserve mention in wikipedia.  And that is simply not the way Wikipedia works. Tejastheory 03:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article is good & too long to go anywhere else. Meets WP:BIO in my view. Johnbod 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:BIO. Her work in Canada makes her notable apart from her death. GarryKosmos 03:19, 3 May 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.