Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th nomination)

1978:-- per arguments in the 2nd AfD: many independent sources covered her life with more than trivial coverage. The shooter was also not notable before the event: it's our ability to write a deep, well-documented article that is a primary consideration. The article is not an obituary, it's a biography. Mindmatrix said above the verifiability is "necessary, but not sufficient, for an article's inclusion. There are many verifiable things which don't merit inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) (for example, every article in every community newspaper)." Was she only covered in local community newspapers? No. National news sources dedicated pages to her biography. Thus Mind's second criterion is also fulfilled. -- 224:(2) By far the most persistent contention on the part of those who wish to keep this article has been that, since Couture-Nowak has been the subject of multiple independent articles, such proves her notability. I suggests that such a contention follows the letter of the law, and not the spirit. One need only look to the actual content of said articles -- again, they are really just extended coverage of the VTech massacre, in that they attempt to flesh out the incident and the characters in the drama, namely the victims. The only question here is, Was this woman notable in and of herself and her achievements? Remember 1224:

works; fewer (even involuntary) participants in a major event, more focus they'll receive; more notability. The fact that the victim here in question was picked out from the dozens dead, picked out by regional newspapers because of her background, rather than her accomplishments, does not confer notability. I think this whole debate is getting a little nationalistic, with people defending this entry as if though they're defending French Canadian pride or something. Finally keep in mind, for comparison, that the entry describing the school Ms Couture Nowak founded, that entry was deleted as non-notable.

2412:, which states that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The argument I'm trying to get across, as are others, is that the coverage Ms Couture Nowak received was essentially trivial and incidental -- totally under the aegis of the events at VTech. There was no reason to single her out except in the rush to get any kind of copy about the story, to think of new angles to cover the story. Emily Jane Hilscher, for instance, one of the first victims, has several articles "about" her -- 233:

boldface words on the left, rather than thinking hard about (1) what is really policy and (2) what is really common sense. Many show up here, make their vote in a sentence or word, then vanish. This kind of technique I believe can really harpoon a debate, and lead to a kind of fake "no consensus". I hope we can get an administrator who has a sufficient mastery of policy such that he may address this issue with articulateness and on well-cited grounds, or at least bother to leave an opinion rather than just a one-word decision.

1194: 1767:. I have held back on voicing my opinion in previous reviews, but ultimately feel that she was the subject of numerous articles here in Canada and became quite notable. In the end, I feel that it was more than just extended coverage of the massacre. And although I believe that the nominator acted good faith, I firmly believe that this is one nomination too many, and that at a certain point, the lack of consensus should be accepted as a keep because there is clearly no consensus to delete. 1207: 2735:

academic work. that may or may not be significant, but she is firstly known for the efforts in french language education. When you are appling a test, you must look at the peson overall. She is not for example being cited as an Sport figure so the sports related tests are not relavant. Some people have one major defining moment, or achevement others make a lot of small contributions, it seems in this case we are discusing someone who is a poly-contibutor to society.

1045:

by the regional newspapers was because of her background. For instance, in Guatemala, there were news stories about the Guatamalan victims of 9/11 -- that's now regional papers make their butter, by stories with a "regional focus". But it's too willy-nilly to confer notability when the subject is per se not notable. As I said before, this debate is getting a little nationalist -- I think many are defending this entry because it has to do with a French Canadian.

2821:

likely that those facts would have come to light over time in any case. people focussing on this as related to the virginia tech massacre and death are precisely missing the point of notability, which is that it does not matter when the facts of notability come to be documented, just that the facts are documented, cited and verified. the conjunction in this case... the facts coming to light upon her death, is not the cause of the facts.--

2244:—if it meets the notability requirements, we keep it. And anybody who tries to apply BLP to dead people should just be ignored. Soon we've have deletionists citing BLP to delete articles on small towns, obscure insects, and far-off moons. It just boggles the mind. We have a policy, and it's pretty simple, yet it has to be continually twisted so that it can be used more extensively, and the encyclopedia can be that much smaller. 1276:. I appreciate that nom is trying to "obtain" consensus on whether to delete or not, but the last AfD noted that AfDs are a poor way of "building" consensus for contested articles. Would be nice to see some progress on the article's Talk page. (There was some efforts made by nom and others). Her fame and notability may only have occurred after her death, but that's not an acceptable argument. You'd knock off 2502:

which is the criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Finally, let me assert that an article, any article, has to demonstrate notability the moment it is created, even if it's a stub-article. If in the future some heretofore hidden revelation that Ms Couture Nowak did something of a historical scale in her biography comes to light, the article will be rightfully recreated.

208:] I hope anyone who accuses me or others of abuse of process recognizes that fact. I do not propose to review this endlessly until the result I want is achieved, but instead until we can get to a decision based on consensus, either "delete" or "keep" -- some of us view "no consensus" as something of a non-decision. 2552:

actually.... opinions that vociferously argue that they are correct and all other positions are against wikipedia policy in one way oe 18 others should be discounted. one liners are great, they establish consensus. arguers who extensively post against one liners, should be ignored because they are

2473:

She got a degree, taught, and founded a school - that's essentially her biography. Not notable! Besides common sense, evidence supports that: for instance the article that had to do with the school she founded was eliminated in an AfD. As for "only matter of time arguments", being not psychic myself,

2459:

It is not trivial, it was only a matter of time before there was enough documentation to support her notability. That the VT event happened, just made scholarship and reporting act faster than it would have. She was notable to a large community before the event, she was more noted after the event.

1783:

guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites a number of reliable, national news sources. Notability is not a personal "achievement"; it is a recognition that enough information on the

1284:

winners recognized post-humously. We may not think much of the 'created a school' claim, but notable people such as the Prime Minister thought it a notable accomplishment and their validation was widely covered in reliable sources. I can see why she's contentious as I think she just clears the bar of

1044:

Of course she is low profile. We wouldn't be having this debate if she weren't. She was in life, and her death does not change such a fact. The articles that arose subsequent to her death were largely biographical data, recycled wire copy -- and the real problem is that the only reason she was chosen

963:

was written for (read the WP:BLP discussion history if you don't believe me). When the Prime Minister of Canada makes a speech in Parliament specifically about a person and national newpapers and networks write articles primarily about her, privacy concerns are completely moot. This isn't a WP:BLP

335:

isn't exactly true because if that was the case you wouldn't have made the previous statement. Obviously there have been quite a few good discussions for both ways (keep and delete), and more often then not, the longer a discussion gets (usually a lot of both keep and delete recommendations) that it

946:

There is nothing that violates the privacy of this person, not only in the letter of it, but in "the spirit" of it. Your WIkiLawyering is painstakingly attempting to apply a cherrypicked subclause of a policy that IN SPIRIT is meant to ensure accuracy and verifiability of an article. You might not

548:

It is "non-sensical" only if one is inclined to play semantics games, a syndrome all too common on Knowledge (XXG) (where someone actually voted Oppose on a RfAr on the sole strength of the candidate using the word "vote" in connection with the process, which is solely determined by a consensus vote

2501:

Here we go again with the nationalism. Leave that be. As for the school notability, it depends on the school. I've founded a school too, here in NY, for actors -- it's really small, but you don't hear me clamoring for notability because I know that you have to work to become historically important,

2342:

be consdidered as notable at least in Canada. She became the subject of an article upon her death, which is a logical time to consider writing an article. Her involvment at Virginia Tech is another sidelight, but if she had been hit by a truck, she still meets the basic criteria for inclusion. I

2204:

This whole affair has been an unfortunate confluence of emotion and legalism. And indeed, the crystal-ballism of previous debates, during which it was argued that "with time" the article would become notable, has been proved wrong. I hope we can find admins who respect consensus, but refuse to take

1181:

Those are not good examples. Both were the only (or one of the two) victims of famous murders, not one of dozens in a sudden spree. For instance, Tippit, his part is noteworthy because he fits within the grand scheme of the topic of the Kennedy assassination. By the way, Oakshade, I believe Stephen

196:

There have been three deletion discussions and two reviews. The reason I bring up the debate again is that we've never gotten to a final consensus point, that is, of "keep". I and others assert this article was created out of the emotion of the moment and has been, despite months of time, unable to

58:

and that the one event rule is of the "should" rather than the "must" variety, allowing for latitude. Since both camps are of roughly equal size and employ defensible policy arguments, this is essentially an editorial decision, on which we have no consensus. May I suggest that AfD no. 5 be deferred

2820:

the 'before her death' bit does not follow. facts about a person's life come out when they come out. this person's life had a significant event that caused many people to research and make note of her accomplishments. that it happened after the death does not mean the death caused it, as it is

2734:

in the province. That one act, which is well documented by independent secondary sources SHOULD be enough to earn this person a place in an encyclopedia. The fact that she was a victum of "yet another" american shooting does not diminish that event. She is not being evaluated on the body of her

1940:

did apply, it does advise against separate bios for most (but not all) cases because of concerns for: (1) undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, (2) redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and (3) cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. There appears room

723:

of the massacre. That is a clear violation of BLP and has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLawyering. The fact that you're ignoring both the spirit of BLP and Knowledge (XXG) and focusing only on what is written in WP:N is much more symptomatic of WikiLawyering and downright worrisome. This is an

2674:

apply, particularly demonstrable name recognition. A notability claim is contributing to Francophone community: as per..."Chris d'Entremont, Minister of Acadian Affairs. "She has made a great contribution to the francophone community, particularly with the development of École acadienne in Truro"

2538:

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

1953:

should be considered, but the content seems very well sourced and does not appear to me to overstate her role in the attack. In fact, her bio is the only place on WP that describes the Canadian and Francophone (and Polish?!) reaction to her death, and the fact that massive, massive media coverage

1223:

Sometimes the sheer number of victims confers notability. This may be distasteful, but it's true. The Kent State victim (one of several) is surely notable, not because of anything he did but because of his death and subsequent (involuntary) participation in a very famous photo. That's just how it

1857:

30 references over the year. Major news services,major newspapers. That is what notability is about. In previous deletion discussions, there was great emphasis on the fact that all the references were right after the event, even though it seemed obvious to most of us that it would continue to be

1357:

As I described above, that doesn't matter as it's possible for your notable achievements to go unrecognized during your lifetime. In fact, many of the best biographies are written after someone has died and there are many examples of people's accomplishments being re-evaluated and accepted after

1106:

notes that the rule in a nutshell is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." But that's just the nutshell, Oakshade, and we have to think rationally about why this entry exists at all, which is

1480:

Buridan: what precisely, pray, did she do that was notable, and could end up in an encyclopedia? Also, pray, what would waiting two years accomplish? Also, see WP:NOTAGAIN. Canuckle: I don't want to get faux-scientific with you; let me just say that to equate no consensus with an endorsement is

553:

is a fundamental, official policy of Knowledge (XXG) should spell out the concern. That aside, of course Knowledge (XXG) editors decide whether a subject is notable or not; to date, Knowledge (XXG) editors measure articles under AfD review for notability based on standards written, amended and

232:

As a final note, let me state that too many administrators view AfDs (and other debates based on consensus) as being little more that vote-gathering sessions, despite policy clearly stating the contrary. Too many people, in assessing these debates, use the quick and dirty method of scanning the

2729:

Hate to sound like a re-hash, their are at least two and probaly Three significant "events" in this persons life. any of which could justify a """KEEP""" (not a vote, I already voted to keep above) Founding an school, for french speaking students where their was none before means that it was

2773:

applies to this person, and for what reason. I'm trying to be very precise here because some of us have two particular concerns about this article. On there own these are not reasons for deletion, but they give us strong reason to suspect the implied notability of this person. My concerns

653:

Wrong. Read the BDJ arbitration case -- BLP is about the recently deceased as well. WP:NOT and WP:BLP trump WP:N and WP:BIO in this case and in every similar case, and this is a clear violation of both. While BLP is not used in establishing notability, it is used in deletion of BLP-violating

1416:

that is the same in my book. If you do not reach consensus to delete, it is a defacto keep, it passed, if you can't do that the first time or the fourth time, you will end up with the same thing this time. this one should be viewed as a continuation of the last no consensus at

2487:

Founding a school is notable, especially where and when she did it. That the school was deleted is probably part of systematic bias against francophone canada on english wikipedia, I suspect that page will come back sometime in the future. I can't know that, but we'll see.

885:

of the massacre, which makes it absolutely, 100% in the context of the massacre. You can't spin it any other way. This has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLawyering, and your repeated, unsupported accusations just show that you're grasping for straws. This has to do with the

2177:...All the new sources concern the EVENT, not the PERSON, thus this person is only notable as a participant of the EVENT. Therefore, the article should be redirected to the EVENT that asserts their notability, not as an individual, but as someone who took part in an EVENT. 710:

I'm not sure you understand the BLP policy or the concept of WikiLawyering. Remember: when a person gains notability for an event, as demanded by BLP, cover the event, not the person. If you took some time to step back and examine the matter, you would see that the subject

431:

the reason she became notable doesn't suddenly make her non-notable. "The world" decides if someone is notable, not Knowledge (XXG) editors. There's too much topic-specific content here to be redirected to the already long List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre.

1466:

way to build an encyclopedia. Inertia is: "The tendency of an object at rest to remain at rest, and of an object in motion to remain in motion". WP is definitely in motion. Sometimes, the motion is in endless circles seeking consensus by AfD but usually it's forward.

549:

of the participants). Plainly the text of Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines bear much weight, as evidenced by continuous parsing in debates, and the very nature of XfD sways back and forth between the strict and the loose constructionists. The mere fact that

2515:

no, we are going with systematic bias, and we pointed it out. in any case, if you review the comments, there is no consensus to delete, in fact, the consensus seems to be keep or keep as redirect. if there is consensus how do you think it should be interpretted?

2436:

makes is very clear that "trivial coverage" refers to "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." The coverage of this person is extensive and deep and nothing at all resembling WP:BIO's definition of "trivial."

863:

The multiple reliable sources are EXACTLY primarily about her, not "only in the context of" the massacres but of her life, work, the creation of a prominent Francophone school, etc.. Your WikiLawyering attempt to stretch the meaning of WP:BLP just isn't working.

1058:

Being the primary subject of multiple national (not "regional" as you so claimed) secondary sources is not at all low profile. And not covering notable subjects outside United States, whether they be notable in Canada or Guatemala, is exactly the purpose of the

1918:

apply because it includes "recently deceased" people, then how long is recent? 6 months, 12 months, 2 years plus a day? Name a subjective time period and an editor could recreate this bio after it. Then we would face becoming a recreation of the Pythonesque

1562:

and only is in the newspapers as one of many victims in a massacre. We do not have memorial articles. No sources to show she was notable other for being in the wrong place at the wrong time for a few horrible minutes. Cover the event, not the victims.

123: 1494:

Founding a school is notable and could end up in an encyclopedia of the history of education of canada. surely wikipedia will eventually encapsulate that history in its totality, no? isn't that the goal of wikipedia to hold the sum of knowledge?

1742:. Aside from being an art instructor and having been one of about three dozen people shot and killed during the VT massacre a few months back, she's really not that notable - but certainly should get a mention in the aforementioned article. -- 326:

and refrain from stating "too many administrators view AfDs as being little more that vote-gathering sessions". Sounds like you are introducting presumptions upon editors, and your "I don't care what the consensus is, as long as it's either

760: 1210:. Pretty standard condolence stuff, admittedly. I do think that Dion and Harper, spoke more at length in the press about her role in the Francophone community but I think that has now turned into a dead link. Or it may have been in French. 129: 134: 2460:

However, that she is notable for her work in education in a large community is not disputed anywhere above and really, it can't be disputed because there is no counter evidence to 'is notable' as that would just add notability.--

117: 112: 107: 1452:

without inertia, there would be no wikipedia..... Inclusion of encyclopedic content is the key. Did she do something that could end up in an encyclopedia? yes, did she do something that was notable in her life? yes.

754:

Nobody is claiming she was notable by WP standards before the tragedy. She became notable due to it. And she didn't only become "semi"-notable, but in fact an unfortunate national celebrity. Even Canadian Prime Minister

692:

The articles primarily about this person are about her life and work OUTSIDE of the massacre. To say "Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was the subject of newspaper articles, therefore is in violation of WP:BLP" is just farcical

1481:

misguided. If an article, including this one, can stand on its own merits, let it be judged keep. If not, delete. Accepting these "no consensus" decisions is a toxic misadventure, one that stifles debate and discourse.

2800:, but not all schools are notable, and nothing in this article asserts the notability of this particular school. If the notability of the school can be asserted (and properly cited) in this article, then that would go 2407:

pithily formulates an opposition to creating entries for people notable for only one event, it does so partly under the rubric of privacy, which is why it's throwing some people off. But BLP1E echoes what is clearly in

1680:

sure it is. it is best to not delete well verified articles, as eventually as wikipedia grows, other articles will tie into this one and they will mutually strengthen each other. if this was unverified, i'd have said

1690:

Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an article's inclusion. There are many verifiable things which don't merit inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) (for example, every article in every community newspaper).

289:

variant for crime victims all around for whom their only notability comes from fluff wasn't-she-a-swell-fellow? encomiums from the survivors in the ten days immediately following the tragedy, and not thereafter.

688:"Where a person is mentioned by name in a Knowledge (XXG) article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This person is 597:

to establish that she was notable before becoming a victim, as harsh as that sounds. Again, this is a clear violation of our policies. If you don't like that, change the policies, but redirect in the meantime.

465:

page:" is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The

2645:"The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources" 54:, a policy, noting that the subject is (although extensively) covered only in relation to the shooting. The replies of those wanting to keep include that the subject is no longer a living person subject to 266: 1191:

let's not start trying to rank victims' notability by the number of people killed at one time. let's look at each individual person. As to the question about Harper, here's links to what was said on the

219:

and one or two others, who were in life notable due to their achievements. Therefore, the coverage Ms Couture-Nowak received was solely by virtue of her participation, and totally incidental to it.

1098:

This is precisely the problem I'm trying to get across. Oakshade, you fail to get past the face of the guidelines and cling too strongly to the technical meaning without pausing to reflect on the

2675:

from a current reference. This claim, although short, was extremely widespread in her ethnic community, in her province and nationally. There are no end to media references that can be supplied.

1716:

I want to meet this guy who says everything mentioned in every community newspaper should have an article. Deletionists are always kicking the straw out of him, and I kinda feel bad for him.

1526:

The delete result is not controlling, but I bring it up whenever I detect the attitude that reasons that since there has as yet been no consensus, keep is appropriate. I think it's called

211:

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

2104: 2100: 2099:

say anywhere that it also applies to recently deseased people, then just read it and you won't find it. The most recent discussions about adding such a clause, and in turn rejected, are

932:"Knowledge (XXG) articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to 769:

and many others are about her. She became notable because of the event and all of these were written about her because of it, but that doesn't change he fact she became very notable. --

102: 1168:

I meant the hundreds or thousands of articles that have much less secondary coverage about the topic, not specifically victims of crimes. But BRMo brings up good examples of those. --

1122:

This person most certainly passes the "intention" of our guidelines more than hundreds (if not thousands) of article topics as being someone who unfortunately became very notable. --

1370:

it is deeper than "a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form" and she has demonstrable wide name recognition within Canada, particularly with Francophones.

1954:

plus validation from notable sources that she made contributions to Francophone society (whether I believe it or not - the claims were made and quite widely). I did consider the '

1599:

doens't apply. That one event she unfortunately became notable for is extremely "historic" and being the only Canadian in the massacre sadly placed her in Canadian history. --

215:(1) that this woman, god rest her, was before the tragedy not notable, and her (involuntary) involvement in the same conferred upon her no special notability. Compare with Prof 1306:, the group of victims or the killer will become the "iconic image that will forever recall the massacre at Virginia Tech". She may not have become the iconic image outside of 930:

and why it was created - so it doesn't adversely affect peoples lives, not to mention to ensure Knowledge (XXG) doesn't get sued. I'll quote the entire "In a Nutshell" section

189: 204:

As mentioned, the only result (beyond the first AfD's result of "delete", which was overturned without (unfortunately) explanation) we've gotten has been "no consensus" --

1513:

to support you in saying that no consensus was reached. But we should also be cautious about citing a Delete decision that was overturned on review for lack of consensus

2240:

Every 9/11 victim that meets the notability requirements should have an article; the same goes for victims of anything, including school shootings. In fact, it goes for

483:

notable before he flew in space? Your argument suggests that it is impossible for a person to be notable because of one single incident, which is clearly not the case.

1530:. People, listen: it's been months; the article still has no information that justifies an existence outside of the main Vtech article or Vtech victims page. That's it! 1060: 1632: 1430:

Inertia is a terrible way to build an encyclopedia. And let's not forget that one of the three completed AfDs ended in "Delete", while none have yet ended in "Keep".

73: 1403:

Comment: While I too disagree with the frequency, nom does argue that previous AfDs did not "pass" (consensus to keep) -- rather they failed to obtain consensus.

2593: 1842: 1739: 319: 249: 198: 2658:

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

2596:. On the strengths of the article (and it's references) in their present form, there is nothing to assert notability other than the shooting (which fails 2218:

with time... means 5-10 years, not an afd each month for those 60-120 months, please keep some perspective, as knowledge and notability change over time.--

1182:

Harper mentioned Couture-Nowak in passing, and didn't give a whole speech about her. This is the best I can gather from some light research. Do you know?

1007:

Rockstar's point is very simple, Oakshade. Her biography has no encyclopedia value outside of the context of the event. There is no way to argue against

162: 157: 2416:-- but of course they're really about the VTech story, about fleshing out the characters in the drama as it were. Also, can anyone seriously argue that 197:

justify its existence with the present article information. In other words, all information available herein is nothing that couldn't be listed on the

166: 1202: 829:

Please just read the Bdj ArbCom decision -- BLP does not only apply to living people. Furthermore, just read the statement taken directly from BLP:

2709:

Supporting Oakshade: Indeed, caveat 3 of WP:PROF specifically points out that academics can be notable for other things than being academics. --

149: 452:

Yes and it's not convincing. And the "letter of the law" comment is non-sensical as Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines are not "laws." --

2692:

is what applies and this person easily passes those. Incorrectly applying a guideline like WP:PROF and then arguing against it is a classic

1949:

concerns with the description of her activities during the attack. That can be resolved with a main-article link in the appropriate section.

2825: 2815: 2739: 2718: 2700: 2679: 2665: 2557: 2543: 2529: 2520: 2506: 2492: 2478: 2464: 2454: 2441: 2424: 2385: 2372: 2359: 2347: 2328: 2319: 2301: 2286: 2266: 2248: 2231: 2222: 2209: 2195: 2149: 2137: 2111: 2086: 2073: 2052: 2039: 2025: 2004: 1987: 1931: 1906: 1886: 1869: 1849: 1821: 1808: 1788: 1771: 1759: 1720: 1711: 1702: 1685: 1675: 1662: 1642: 1616: 1603: 1587: 1567: 1534: 1517: 1499: 1485: 1471: 1457: 1447: 1434: 1421: 1407: 1394: 1374: 1348: 1314: 1289: 1268: 1228: 1214: 1186: 1172: 1163: 1143: 1126: 1111: 1067: 1049: 1035: 1015: 998: 968: 915: 868: 854: 820: 807: 773: 745: 701: 675: 644: 619: 562: 536: 520: 487: 474: 456: 447: 436: 399: 369: 357: 310: 298: 276: 256: 239: 84: 63: 632:

primarily about living people (this person tragically died last April), that policy is about verification and NPOV, not about notability.

322:

per Propaniac. She does not need her own article, as she was not notable before the shootings. I'd like to point out to the nominator to

1323:

By the way, you are just further proving that she was not notable before the fact. I hope you realize that this is an article about her

593:(and yes, BLP applies to the recently deceased). Every single source used in this article was written after her death. Period. There is 2602:"If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" 2400: 1298:

I added a reference that gives an idea how notable Canadian media thought she was: a column by CBC News Editor-in-Chief Tony Burman -

831:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.

2227:

By this reasoning, all 3000+ people who died in the WTC collapse would be notable. While its sad, I just dont agree with it either

937: 17: 992: 909: 848: 801: 739: 669: 613: 2065:

change WP:BLP at all. There have been proposals to change WP:BLP to inculded recenetly deceased and every one has been shot down.

941: 1959: 1755: 1367: 1962:

be created. If this was done, virtually all the present biographical content would still be on Knowledge (XXG) then. Plus even

1509:

Go as "faux-scientific" with me as much as you want. I did not equate no consensus with endorsement. In fact, I responded to

2604:). It's theoretically possible that this person is notable enough for inclusion without being particularly well known (per 2315:. Keeping this is an obvious circumvention of WP policy and yet another example of news being conflated with notability. 1299: 416: 2842: 2765:

under those criteria does not automatically make it true. Please could someone explain to me exactly what criteria in

252:; no disrespect intended, but her notability is as a victim of the massacre and there's no need for a lengthy article. 36: 153: 2761:. I'm not looking for a fight here, and I will gladly embrace that argument if it is true, but saying that she is 2553:

clearly pushing a point of view. that to me seems much more in the spirit of wikipedia than ignoring one liners.--

933: 2157:- I was considering closing this as all keep arguments are essentially the same thing, and are all shut down by 529: 513: 2841:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2297:

clause is for those topics that aren't the subject of multiple secondary sources, ie not somebody's grandpa. --

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2399:

I think we're tending toward legalism again here, and losing sight of what's best for Knowledge (XXG). Arbcom

1390:

wp:common and notable. if it passes 3 times in short order, wait a year or two before you nominate again. --

428: 715:

before the events that took place. Just look at the ref list. She became semi-notable (also covered by BLP)

633: 461:

All the more reason to not hold to the guidelines when it goes against common sense. A disclaimer from the

420: 1966:

Canadiana material could be added about the media coverage, the Bloc Quebecois gun registry response, etc.

955:

section. IN SPRIT, it is meant ensure the privacy of someone who's privacy should be respected. That is

145: 91: 532:

applies to articles that are not the primary subject of secondary reliable sources as this topic is. --

285:

per Propaniac. Pablosecca's case is eloquent and accurate, and frankly, at this rate I'd love to see a

1527: 926:

If you want to talk about the "spirit" of the rules, you are totally missunderstanding the purpose of

2812: 2714: 2662: 2262:

applies only to "essentially low profile" living persons. This person is in no way "low profile". --

2035: 1983: 1751: 1697: 894:

what BLP1E was created for. I'm arguing spirit, you're arguing literal text. Which is WikiLawyering?

517: 273: 833:

That is EXACTLY what this article is. I'm sorry if you fail to understand this, but it's WP policy.

2736: 2356: 2344: 694: 550: 225: 2597: 2404: 2259: 2174: 2162: 2158: 2018: 2014: 1997: 1937: 1899: 1895: 1879: 1834: 1024: 1008: 960: 948: 890:

of the rules, especially BLP. There is no stretching of any meaning of BLP -- this situation is

783: 685: 586: 286: 51: 2608:), but no assertion of that notability is made in either the article or any of it's references. 1707:

Nobody is arguing that this article is unverified: that's why its not pertinent to the debate.

1310:, but this is evidence that some distinctions were drawn between her and the group of victims. 1264:

is the most logical of the solutions. I don't think that was clear from my into above. Thanks,

2413: 1945:

hasn't been raised. The server maintenance of this start-class article is small. There may be

29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2614: 2417: 2192: 1784:

subject has been published in reliable secondary sources to support an encyclopedia article.

1559: 2805: 2343:

would also agree with the concept of their being a time limit for repeated AFD nominations.

2061:

ArbCom ruled that WP:BLP (not specifically BLP1E) applied to a very specific case which did

1841:. She is not notable independent of being a victim, and the best place for her obituary is 1768: 1277: 978: 895: 834: 787: 725: 655: 599: 412: 340:

because it would not be fair until there is a majority consensus of one way or the other. --

81: 2766: 2754: 2685: 2671: 2605: 2433: 2409: 2312: 2294: 2279: 2096: 2066: 1838: 1596: 1580: 1576: 927: 637: 629: 590: 424: 323: 55: 2710: 2627:"The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field" 2621:"The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" 2540: 2503: 2475: 2451: 2421: 2206: 2178: 2083: 2049: 2031: 2001: 1979: 1883: 1743: 1708: 1692: 1672: 1531: 1506: 1482: 1431: 1265: 1225: 1183: 1140: 1108: 1046: 1012: 471: 444: 307: 236: 1958:

argument' while cleaning up the article. I'd like to hear an argument from that POV that

1103: 2651:"The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" 2526: 2325: 2245: 2134: 1717: 1303: 1281: 1156: 1136: 756: 555: 291: 253: 60: 2770: 2758: 2689: 1780: 1612:

The event is historically notable and should be mentioned, not each individual victim

462: 379: 2697: 2676: 2438: 2316: 2298: 2283: 2263: 2108: 2070: 2022: 1928: 1903: 1865: 1846: 1818: 1639: 1600: 1514: 1468: 1444: 1404: 1371: 1311: 1286: 1211: 1169: 1123: 1064: 1032: 965: 865: 817: 770: 767: 698: 641: 533: 453: 433: 216: 977:

I think if you took a look at the slew of recent deletions you might say otherwise.

419:, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, the core criterion of 2822: 2554: 2517: 2489: 2461: 2403:

could not approve a statement affirming that BLP applies only to the living. While

2382: 2219: 1805: 1682: 1510: 1496: 1454: 1418: 1391: 1332: 480: 383: 365:

Seems to me that there's enough here besides the way she died to keep the article.

341: 684:

Wrong. You admit yourself that WP:BLP is not about notability. And to quote from

183: 2355:, she is notable for her achievements during her life and also for her death. -- 554:

interpreted by Knowledge (XXG) editors, as opposed to outside bodies or groups.

2693: 2146: 1920: 1659: 1564: 1307: 1152: 484: 366: 77: 1817:

Ones that have multiple secondary sources written primarily about them, yes. --

382:, save for the Va Tech shootings, hence the feasibility of just redirecting. -- 2369: 2228: 2186: 1613: 1584: 2525:

So you like the Britannica standard of notability. This is Knowledge (XXG).

2450:

It's trivial, because it only has need in the context of the VTech massacre.

1785: 1160: 2161:, but this was nommed a day ago so I'll give it time. Anyway, as stated in 1198: 2808:

references about this person from before here death wouldn't hurt, either.

2791:

the subject's death, and are arguably written as memorials to the subject.

1579:- She was only notable for one incident, with no "historic notability" as 724:

encyclopedia. This is not WikiNews. If you want the news, write for them.

470:: was she notable before the incident took place? The answer is surely no. 427:. The topic became notable due to the shootings. Just because some users 1860: 2633:"The person has published a significant and well-known academic work..." 2133:

and block anybody who nominates this again over at least the next year.

1927:

deceased." That doesn't appear to be common sense or a desirable result.

306:, individually she seams notable, probably the rest could be redirected. 124:

Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (Feb. 19, 2008 nomination)

2381:

The Truro school answers that question pretty nicely, funnily enough.

2030:

Sorry, what part of biography of LIVING persons is relevant here? --

2639:"The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known" 1139:

is only notable for his death also, but it's a very different case.

59:

until something happens that is very likely to change that outcome?

2796:

It has been suggested that this person is notable for founding the

2670:

Thank you for the post. It's been discussed that the more general

1796:

to the List of victims... page. Are we gonna have an article for

2835:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

443:

Did you read my comments above? Specifically, point number (2)?

411:- The person has been the primary subject of multiple published 130:

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

2781:

The article, in it's present form, still reads like a memorial.

2653:- No assertion of this in the article or any of its references. 2647:- No assertion of this in the article or any of its references. 2641:- No assertion of this in the article or any of its references. 2635:- No assertion of this in the article or any of its references. 2629:- No assertion of this in the article or any of its references. 2623:- No assertion of this in the article or any of its references. 2095:

Don't know exactly what you're referring to. If you mean does

1671:

The question of verifiability is not pertinent to this debate.

135:

Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (third nomination)

2017:

doesn't apply, the topic is not "essentially low profile" and

1912: 1898:

doesn't apply, the topic is not "essentially low profile" and

2069:

does not anywhere in it say it applies to deceased people. --

118:

Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (6th nomination)

113:

Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (5th nomination)

108:

Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th nomination)

2048:

ArbCom rules that BLP1E applies to the recently deceased.

2684:

The person is not notable for being an academic alone.

2324:

If it's so obvious, why isn't it written down anywhere?

2021:

is about privacy of private citizens, not notability. --

782:

You just proved the point that this article falls under

1902:

is about privacy of private citizens, not notability.--

179: 175: 171: 2804:

towards asserting the notability of this individual.

2613:

This person is an academic, therefore the criteria of

2368:

What achievements during her life made her notable?

2338:

The previous discussions that this individual would

2169:notable about this person except the Vtech event. 585:to List of Victims. This is a clear-cut example of 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1300:A story of victims and issues, not only the killer 1779:. This biography clearly meets Knowledge (XXG)'s 267:list of Academics and educators-related deletions 2845:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2749:. Several of you are saying that this person is 1107:because and only because of the VTech massacre. 640:are what applies when discussing notability. -- 206:this is another attempt at achieving just that. 50:Those advocating deletion refer extensively to 2205:into account essentially incorrect rationales. 2173:. Ring any bells? I dunno, it reminds me of 1327:the massacre. Was anything written about her 2594:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre 1843:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre 1740:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre 320:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre 250:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre 8: 816:The proof is that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. -- 103:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak 1960:Canadian reaction to Virginia Tech massacre 1443:And that lone Delete result was overturned. 786:and that it should be removed immediately. 1031:This person is in no way "low profile." -- 1878:Having references is only step one. Read 1260:-- by the way, let me state that I think 2787:of the references provided were written 1631:: This debate has been included in the 265:: This debate has been included in the 1208:Bloc Quebecois links it to gun registry 1027:applies specifically to people who are 964:issue, by the letter or "in spirit." -- 100: 2617:must be applied to assess notability: 944:, particularly if it is contentious." 759:made a speech about her in Parliament 2397:Comment to straighten some points out 378:It's just a bio of her life, nothing 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 1362:of coverage. You may argue it's not 1061:WikiProject Countering systemic bias 1368:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) 1358:their death. There has been a good 1285:notability, but she does clear it. 98: 2278:per above, or delete. In reality, 1558:to list of victims. Clearly fails 228:-- and forget knee-jerk reactions. 24: 2474:I cannot comprehend such things. 2242:everything in the entire universe 1923:sketch -- "She's not dead, she's 953:"Presumption in favor of privacy" 2295:Knowledge (XXG) isn't a memorial 2280:Knowledge (XXG) isn't a memorial 1658:perfectly verifiable article. - 1633:list of Canada-related deletions 766:, not the event. The CBC story 654:articles, of which this is one. 1941:for exceptions, like this bio. 1858:notable. And so it has proven. 512:Oakshade, your argument fails 1: 1462:To Pablosecca: Inertia is a 2580:3rd arbitrary section break 1650:2nd arbitrary section break 85:02:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 2862: 2082:Can you cite what you say? 1029:"essentially low profile." 942:avoiding original research 2826:17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2816:13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2740:02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2719:22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2701:16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2680:14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2666:14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2558:10:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 2544:05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 2530:05:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 2521:01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 2507:01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 2493:22:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2479:22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2465:19:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2455:18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2442:02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2425:01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2386:05:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 2373:04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2360:22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2348:19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2329:03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 2320:22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2302:21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2287:05:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2267:02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2249:03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2232:01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2223:09:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2210:00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2196:00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2150:15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 2145:, one event biography. -- 2138:15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 2112:04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2087:03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2074:02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2053:00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2040:18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 2026:15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 2005:08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1988:03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1932:20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1907:15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1887:08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1870:02:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1850:00:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1822:00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1809:23:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1789:22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1772:22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1760:21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1721:05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 1712:08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1703:21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1686:20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1676:20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1663:20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1643:19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1617:01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1604:20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1588:18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1568:18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1535:08:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1518:21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1500:20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1486:19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1472:18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1458:18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1448:18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1435:18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1422:17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1408:17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1395:16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1375:19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1349:19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1315:18:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1302:- that asks whether she, 1290:16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1269:16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1229:08:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1215:01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1195:PM interrupted QP briefly 1187:00:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1173:00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1164:23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1144:20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1127:20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1112:19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 1102:behind those guidelines. 1068:15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1050:08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1036:01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1016:01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 999:00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 969:00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 916:23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 877:The sources were written 869:22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 855:21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 821:21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 808:20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 774:20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 746:18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 702:17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 676:16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 645:16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 620:15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 563:17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 537:17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 521:16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 488:19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 475:18:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 457:16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 448:16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 437:15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 400:15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 370:15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 358:15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 311:14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 299:13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 277:12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 257:12:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 240:11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) 235:Thank you for your time, 64:21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 2838:Please do not modify it. 2798:École acadienne de Truro 690:in no way "low profile." 32:Please do not modify it. 762:. That story is about 577:arbitrary section break 2753:under the criteria in 146:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak 97:AfDs for this article: 92:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak 46:no consensus again. 947:have noticed, but 199:VTech victims page 2763:"clearly notable" 2751:"clearly notable" 2717: 2038: 1986: 1645: 1636: 1331:the massacre?? -- 1203:moment of silence 1135:Give an example. 996: 913: 881:of her death and 852: 805: 743: 673: 617: 413:secondary sources 324:assume good faith 279: 270: 2853: 2840: 2806:Secondary source 2732:class of schools 2713: 2189: 2183: 2034: 1982: 1747: 1746:Dennis The Tiger 1700: 1695: 1637: 1627: 1345: 1342: 1339: 1336: 1278:Vincent Van Gogh 1199:Dion's statement 989: 986: 983: 906: 903: 900: 845: 842: 839: 798: 795: 792: 736: 733: 730: 666: 663: 660: 610: 607: 604: 559: 396: 393: 390: 387: 354: 351: 348: 345: 295: 271: 261: 187: 169: 70:Closure Endorsed 34: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2843:deletion review 2836: 2813:gorgan_almighty 2663:gorgan_almighty 2582: 2420:applies here?-- 2191: 2187: 2179: 2155:Strong Redirect 1956:cover the event 1745: 1698: 1693: 1652: 1507:User:Pablosecca 1343: 1340: 1337: 1334: 995: 984: 979: 912: 901: 896: 851: 840: 835: 804: 793: 788: 742: 731: 726: 713:was not notable 672: 661: 656: 616: 605: 600: 579: 557: 530:WP:NOTINHERITED 518:gorgan_almighty 514:WP:NOTINHERITED 394: 391: 388: 385: 352: 349: 346: 343: 293: 274:Espresso Addict 160: 144: 141: 139: 126: 95: 74:Deletion Review 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2859: 2857: 2848: 2847: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2809: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2782: 2776: 2775: 2743: 2742: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2704: 2703: 2668: 2659: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2648: 2642: 2636: 2630: 2624: 2610: 2609: 2581: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2547: 2546: 2533: 2532: 2523: 2510: 2509: 2496: 2495: 2482: 2481: 2468: 2467: 2457: 2445: 2444: 2428: 2427: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2376: 2375: 2363: 2362: 2350: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2305: 2304: 2290: 2289: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2235: 2234: 2225: 2213: 2212: 2199: 2198: 2185: 2152: 2140: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2090: 2089: 2077: 2076: 2056: 2055: 2043: 2042: 2028: 2008: 2007: 1991: 1990: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1934: 1909: 1890: 1889: 1873: 1872: 1852: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1812: 1811: 1791: 1774: 1762: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1714: 1666: 1665: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1607: 1606: 1591: 1590: 1570: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1521: 1520: 1503: 1502: 1489: 1488: 1475: 1474: 1460: 1450: 1438: 1437: 1425: 1424: 1411: 1410: 1398: 1397: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1352: 1351: 1318: 1317: 1304:Liviu Librescu 1293: 1292: 1282:Victoria Cross 1271: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1218: 1217: 1206: 1193: 1189: 1176: 1175: 1166: 1159:are examples. 1157:Ronald Goldman 1147: 1146: 1137:Jeffrey Miller 1130: 1129: 1115: 1114: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1053: 1052: 1039: 1038: 1019: 1018: 1002: 1001: 991: 972: 971: 919: 918: 908: 872: 871: 858: 857: 847: 824: 823: 811: 810: 800: 777: 776: 757:Stephen Harper 749: 748: 738: 705: 704: 679: 678: 668: 648: 647: 623: 622: 612: 578: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 542: 541: 540: 539: 524: 523: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 405: 404: 403: 402: 373: 372: 360: 313: 301: 280: 259: 234: 230: 229: 221: 220: 210: 209: 203: 202: 194: 193: 140: 138: 137: 132: 127: 122: 120: 115: 110: 105: 99: 96: 94: 89: 88: 87: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2858: 2846: 2844: 2839: 2833: 2832: 2827: 2824: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2814: 2810: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2786: 2783: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2738: 2733: 2728: 2727: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711:Myke Cuthbert 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2702: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2678: 2673: 2669: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2657: 2652: 2649: 2646: 2643: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2625: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2559: 2556: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2542: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2531: 2528: 2524: 2522: 2519: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2508: 2505: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2480: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2466: 2463: 2458: 2456: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2443: 2440: 2435: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2395: 2394: 2387: 2384: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2358: 2354: 2351: 2349: 2346: 2341: 2337: 2334: 2330: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2311:as above per 2310: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2273: 2268: 2265: 2261: 2258: 2257: 2250: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2233: 2230: 2226: 2224: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2211: 2208: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2194: 2190: 2184: 2182: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2153: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2141: 2139: 2136: 2132: 2129: 2128: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2054: 2051: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2032:Myke Cuthbert 2029: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980:Myke Cuthbert 1977: 1974: 1973: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1939: 1935: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1908: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1856: 1853: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1829: 1828: 1823: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1792: 1790: 1787: 1782: 1778: 1775: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1763: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1741: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1713: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1696: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1684: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1641: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1618: 1615: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1569: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1554: 1553: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1470: 1465: 1461: 1459: 1456: 1451: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1409: 1406: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1386: 1385: 1376: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1283: 1280:(I think) or 1279: 1275: 1272: 1270: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1256: 1255: 1230: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1190: 1188: 1185: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1165: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1037: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 994: 987: 982: 976: 975: 974: 973: 970: 967: 962: 958: 954: 950: 945: 943: 939: 935: 934:verifiability 929: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 917: 911: 904: 899: 893: 889: 884: 880: 876: 875: 874: 873: 870: 867: 862: 861: 860: 859: 856: 850: 843: 838: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 822: 819: 815: 814: 813: 812: 809: 803: 796: 791: 785: 781: 780: 779: 778: 775: 772: 768: 765: 761: 758: 753: 752: 751: 750: 747: 741: 734: 729: 722: 718: 714: 709: 708: 707: 706: 703: 700: 696: 695:WikiLawyering 691: 687: 683: 682: 681: 680: 677: 671: 664: 659: 652: 651: 650: 649: 646: 643: 639: 635: 634:WP:NOTABILITY 631: 627: 626: 625: 624: 621: 615: 608: 603: 596: 592: 588: 584: 581: 580: 576: 564: 561: 560: 552: 547: 544: 543: 538: 535: 531: 528: 527: 526: 525: 522: 519: 515: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 489: 486: 482: 478: 477: 476: 473: 469: 464: 460: 459: 458: 455: 451: 450: 449: 446: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 435: 430: 426: 422: 421:WP:NOTABILITY 418: 414: 410: 407: 406: 401: 398: 397: 381: 377: 376: 375: 374: 371: 368: 364: 361: 359: 356: 355: 339: 334: 330: 325: 321: 317: 314: 312: 309: 305: 302: 300: 297: 296: 288: 284: 281: 278: 275: 268: 264: 260: 258: 255: 251: 247: 244: 243: 242: 241: 238: 227: 223: 222: 218: 214: 213: 212: 207: 200: 191: 185: 181: 177: 173: 168: 164: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 142: 136: 133: 131: 128: 125: 121: 119: 116: 114: 111: 109: 106: 104: 101: 93: 90: 86: 83: 79: 75: 71: 68: 67: 66: 65: 62: 57: 53: 48: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2837: 2834: 2801: 2797: 2788: 2784: 2762: 2750: 2746: 2731: 2696:argument. -- 2650: 2644: 2638: 2632: 2626: 2620: 2601: 2589: 2585: 2414:for instance 2396: 2352: 2339: 2335: 2308: 2275: 2241: 2180: 2170: 2166: 2154: 2142: 2130: 2062: 1975: 1963: 1955: 1951:Undue weight 1950: 1946: 1942: 1924: 1915: 1859: 1854: 1830: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1776: 1764: 1744: 1735: 1655: 1628: 1572: 1555: 1463: 1387: 1363: 1359: 1333: 1328: 1324: 1273: 1261: 1257: 1099: 1028: 980: 956: 952: 931: 897: 891: 887: 882: 878: 836: 830: 789: 763: 727: 720: 716: 712: 689: 657: 628:Not only is 601: 594: 582: 556: 545: 481:Yuri Gagarin 467: 408: 384: 362: 342: 338:no consensus 337: 332: 328: 315: 303: 292: 282: 262: 245: 231: 205: 195: 69: 49: 45: 43: 31: 28: 2730:creating a 2694:red herring 2539:standards. 2165:, there is 1996:Again, see 1921:Dead Parrot 1839:WP:NOT#NEWS 1800:victim? of 1769:Skeezix1000 1597:WP:NOT#NEWS 1583:requires. 1577:WP:NOT#NEWS 1528:WP:NOTAGAIN 1308:Nova Scotia 1153:J.D. Tippit 591:WP:NOT#NEWS 336:ends up in 2802:a long way 2541:Pablosecca 2504:Pablosecca 2476:Pablosecca 2452:Pablosecca 2422:Pablosecca 2207:Pablosecca 2084:Pablosecca 2050:Pablosecca 2002:Pablosecca 1947:redundancy 1884:Pablosecca 1804:massacre? 1781:notability 1709:Pablosecca 1673:Pablosecca 1532:Pablosecca 1483:Pablosecca 1432:Pablosecca 1266:Pablosecca 1226:Pablosecca 1184:Pablosecca 1141:Pablosecca 1109:Pablosecca 1047:Pablosecca 1013:Pablosecca 951:is in the 938:neutrality 719:her death 558:RGTraynor 472:Pablosecca 445:Pablosecca 429:don't like 308:Callelinea 294:RGTraynor 237:Pablosecca 2527:Everyking 2326:Everyking 2246:Everyking 2135:Everyking 1718:Everyking 1681:delete.-- 1100:intention 551:WP:IGNORE 468:acid test 415:that are 363:Weak keep 254:Propaniac 226:WP:COMMON 61:Sandstein 2698:Oakshade 2677:Canuckle 2598:WP:BLP1E 2590:Redirect 2439:Oakshade 2405:WP:BLP1E 2357:musicpvm 2317:Eusebeus 2309:Redirect 2299:Oakshade 2284:GreenJoe 2276:Redirect 2264:Oakshade 2260:WP:BLP1E 2175:WP:BLP1E 2163:WP:BLP1E 2159:WP:BLP1E 2143:Redirect 2109:Oakshade 2071:Oakshade 2023:Oakshade 2019:WP:BLP1E 2015:WP:BLP1E 1998:WP:BLP1E 1938:WP:BLP1E 1929:Canuckle 1925:recently 1904:Oakshade 1900:WP:BLP1E 1896:WP:BLP1E 1880:WP:BLP1E 1847:Resolute 1835:WP:BLP1E 1831:Redirect 1819:Oakshade 1794:Redirect 1736:Redirect 1640:Canuckle 1601:Oakshade 1573:Redirect 1556:Redirect 1515:Canuckle 1469:Canuckle 1464:terrific 1445:Canuckle 1405:Canuckle 1372:Canuckle 1312:Canuckle 1287:Canuckle 1262:redirect 1212:Canuckle 1170:Oakshade 1124:Oakshade 1065:Oakshade 1033:Oakshade 1025:WP:BLP1E 1009:WP:BLP1E 966:Oakshade 961:WP:BLP1E 949:WP:BLP1E 866:Oakshade 818:Oakshade 784:WP:BLP1E 771:Oakshade 699:Oakshade 686:WP:BLP1E 642:Oakshade 587:WP:BLP1E 583:Redirect 546:Comment: 534:Oakshade 454:Oakshade 434:Oakshade 417:reliable 316:Redirect 287:WP:BLP1E 283:Redirect 246:Redirect 190:View log 52:WP:BLP1E 2823:Buridan 2747:Comment 2615:WP:PROF 2555:Buridan 2518:Buridan 2490:Buridan 2462:Buridan 2418:WP:PROF 2383:Bearcat 2220:Buridan 2171:1 event 2167:nothing 1806:GoodDay 1683:Buridan 1560:WP:PROF 1511:Buridan 1497:Buridan 1455:Buridan 1419:Buridan 1417:best.-- 1392:Buridan 1366:but as 1360:breadth 1258:Comment 957:exactly 892:exactly 883:because 879:because 721:because 595:nothing 380:notable 217:Granata 163:protect 158:history 2767:WP:BIO 2755:WP:BIO 2715:(talk) 2686:WP:BIO 2672:WP:NOT 2606:WP:NPF 2586:Delete 2434:WP:BIO 2410:WP:BIO 2340:likely 2313:WP:NOT 2147:Eyrian 2097:WP:BLP 2067:WP:BLP 2036:(talk) 2013:Again 1984:(talk) 1699:matrix 1660:SimonP 1581:WP:NOT 1565:Edison 1329:BEFORE 1192:day... 959:what 928:WP:BLP 888:spirit 638:WP:BIO 630:WP:BLP 485:JulesH 425:WP:BIO 367:JulesH 329:delete 167:delete 78:Chaser 56:WP:BLP 2789:after 2737:cmacd 2370:Corpx 2345:cmacd 2229:Corpx 2181:Giggy 1802:every 1798:every 1756:stuff 1614:Corpx 1585:Corpx 1325:AFTER 1104:WP:NN 717:after 184:views 176:watch 172:links 16:< 2774:are: 2771:WP:N 2769:and 2759:WP:N 2757:and 2690:WP:N 2688:and 2401:here 2353:Keep 2336:KEEP 2293:The 2131:Keep 2105:here 2103:and 2101:here 1976:Keep 1964:more 1943:NPOV 1866:talk 1855:Keep 1837:and 1833:per 1786:BRMo 1777:Keep 1765:Keep 1754:and 1752:Rawr 1694:Mind 1656:Keep 1629:Note 1575:per 1388:Keep 1364:deep 1274:Keep 1161:BRMo 1155:and 1063:. -- 985:star 981:Rock 940:and 902:star 898:Rock 841:star 837:Rock 794:star 790:Rock 732:star 728:Rock 697:. -- 662:star 658:Rock 636:and 606:star 602:Rock 589:and 479:Was 463:WP:N 423:and 409:Keep 333:keep 304:Keep 263:Note 180:logs 154:talk 150:edit 2785:All 2592:to 2588:or 2107:.-- 2063:not 1936:If 1916:did 1913:BLP 1911:If 1861:DGG 1738:to 1638:-- 1635:. 764:her 516:. — 331:or 318:to 269:. 248:to 188:– ( 76:.-- 72:at 2600:- 2516:-- 2488:-- 2437:-- 2282:. 1868:) 1845:. 1758:) 1495:-- 1453:-- 1341:ji 1338:mn 1335:su 1201:, 1197:, 997:) 936:, 914:) 864:-- 853:) 806:) 744:) 674:) 618:) 432:-- 392:ji 389:mn 386:su 350:ji 347:mn 344:su 182:| 178:| 174:| 170:| 165:| 161:| 156:| 152:| 80:- 2811:— 2661:— 2193:P 2188:U 2000:. 1882:. 1864:( 1750:( 1344:m 1205:, 1011:. 993:C 990:/ 988:( 910:C 907:/ 905:( 849:C 846:/ 844:( 802:C 799:/ 797:( 740:C 737:/ 735:( 670:C 667:/ 665:( 614:C 611:/ 609:( 395:m 353:m 272:— 201:. 192:) 186:) 148:( 82:T

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index