548:
the article relies on is an obituary. An obituary is: "a notice of the death of a person, often with a biographical sketch, as in a newspaper." or "A published notice of a death, sometimes with a brief biography of the deceased." (Both from dictionary.com) The sources that this article is based on are nothing more than passing mentions of her life, in the context of her death. The fact that a person has an obituary published in a newspaper does not make that person noteworthy. Otherwise nearly EVERYONE would be notable as nearly everyone has an obituary published about them when they die.
563:
what she meant to her students and community, all independent of the shootings. Your comment "The fact that a person has an obituary published in a newspaper does not make that person noteworthy" is non-sensical. This person doesn't have an article because "a newspaper" published an obituary about her, but this person was the primary subject of multiple pieces from many sources in two languages in two countries, not to mention spoken about in
Parliament by the Canadian Prime Minister. It's those stories that make this person stand out from everyone. That is why
264:. The multiple published works are about her, her life and accomplishments and what she meant to the people she knew and grew up with. WP:NOT#NEWS doens't apply and states very clearly it's intended for people how have "been in the news for a brief period". That one event she unfortunately became notable for is extremely "historic" and being the only Canadian in the massacre sadly placed her in Canadian history, far beyond the scope of WP:NOT#NEWS' "a brief appearance in the news." The coverage has been lasting and substantial. Even
335:. Ironically, that last AfD was nominated for the sole purpose of finding consensus which was decided upon as "Keep". And the last AfD was "dominated" by one person so it wasn't a consensus? I've seen strange arguments to discredit consensus before, but that one takes the case. There were over 23 editors participating in that debate (my own comments were a very small minority of all posts made). The idea that I managed to "dominate" at least 23 independent editors is amusing to say the least.--
562:
Quoting those definitions is actually confirming the non-triviality of the secondary sources written about this person. Most are far beyond the scope of "passing mention" or "A published notice of a death, sometimes with a brief biography of the deceased." Most are about here life, work, family and
268:
states: "News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." The sources are VERY substantial in this case. Even in the last couple of months, over seven
608:, not to renominate the AfD two months and five days later. There is a memorial scholarship at a major university named after this person, and another in a Canadian university; this sounds like ongoing importance, to me. But in the end, I believe this AfD should be closed for procedural reasons.
547:
Once again you exaggerate the definition to fit your POV. "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." Every one of the sources that
911:. As the subject of multiple independent, nontrivial articles in national newspapers of at least two countries, Couture-Nowak clearly meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria. This sixth nomination, made so soon after the last "keep" decision, was a really bad idea and is a waste of our time.
822:
on the content standing and never having any of it been removed and it's particularly relevant to this discussion as they include the multiple published works about this person that editors can reference to establish their own opinion on notability. It might look like a bad-faith effort to remove
290:
December 5, 2007 was hardly less than a month ago. The above comment just goes to show the emotion that is involved with these obituary articles. Notability has not been established. There has been no secondary reference to her aside from obituaries. In sum, this is just another obituary - not
928:
Notability has been established with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Nothing has changed since the previous AfDs that ended in Keep. The repeated practice of trying to delete an article after multiple previous AfDs ended with a clear result of Keep spits in the face of consensus.
843:
It is bad faith to assume bad faith. The external sources are all just more obituaries. It would be bad faith if I hadn't brought it out for discussion here, but feel free to push your POV with more exaggerations. I'm sure you'll convince someone.
97:
967:
and warn that further nomination is an attempt to interfere with the functioning of the encyclopedia, and POINT, per David E. The community has spoken quite decisively on this one. No individual has to agree, but all do have to cooperate.
732:(which I'm assuming you're referring to) refers to those who are not the subject of multiple secondary published works by reliable sources as this person is. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is to prevent somebody's beloved grandpa from having an article.--
492:
Actually, she is not the subject of a single independent secondary source because of the school co-founding. She is the subject because of her death. I can give you 600 sources that have small obituaries for every single victim of the
789:
indicates that external links should be kept to a minimum. In fact, most of the links in that section do not contain any additional relevant information, as they are all just more obituaries. I suggest we remove the entire section.
103:
604:. The result of the Fifth Nomination on December 14, 2007 was keep, not a lack of consensus. If nom feels that this result was in error, given the discussion in that nomination, the appropriate response should be to take it up at
108:
91:
86:
81:
392:
that was closed as "Keep" you're referring to was closed on
December 14, just over two months ago (I changed the opening comment from "just under" to "just over"). But I'm glad you corrected that because I forgot to mention
882:. It's obvious from the number and recency of past debates that there's not going to be a concensus to delete on this one, and anyway the article lists plenty of reliable sources about her, the primary criterion for passing
673:
I see no reason why the consensus should have changed since previously. Unlike most of the other victims articles she appears to be have become notable in her death. Indeed, she almost met notability criteria prior to that.
463:
None of the cited sources state this. She did found the first
Francophone school in Truro, but not the entirety of Nova Scotia. We need the opinions of those who are not prone to exaggeration to push their POVs.
270:
199:
76:
169:
748:
Let's let others have their say before you hijack this nomination by domination too. The "multiple secondary published works" that you are talking about are obituaries anyway.
351:
Yet she is not the subject of a single secondary independent source that is not an obituary. Not one. Every single source listed on the article was published after her death.
276:, latter being 10 months after her death. There's too much topic-specific content here to be redirected to the already long List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --
894:
trumps that. The reason for a speedy close is that the discussion is already turning sour and heated and unconstructive, as the nominator should have realized would happen. —
478:
You've missed the point. Per every single source, she's the subject of independent secondary sources, either because of her death or because of the school co-founding.--
426:
Which is the entire point of this nomination. She is only notable because she is a victim of the
Virginia Tech Massacre, as per EVERY SINGLE SOURCE on the article.
531:. There's no "because of death" exclusionary clause in either guideline. Just by you tying "she doesn't pass WP:BIO" doesn't change the fact she does.--
248:
For those that need reminding of why this has been kept, here's a sample from the 5th Afd - The person has been the primary subject of multiple published
136:
131:
309:. The last nomination was dominated by the above person, thus it cannot be said to really be a consensus. It is appropriate to re-open this debate.
23:
140:
240:
389:
332:
224:
123:
691:
for Rooot and
Oakshade. Might I suggest that you will not convince each other, and so do not need to answer each other's points in the AfD?
997:
979:
959:
938:
920:
903:
874:
853:
832:
813:
799:
771:
757:
741:
720:
695:
683:
659:
645:
628:
612:
576:
557:
540:
510:
487:
473:
453:
435:
410:
383:
360:
344:
318:
300:
285:
214:
188:
59:
17:
823:
any external sources that can establish notability during an AfD, particularly if the content is removed by the actual nominator. --
269:
months after her death, there has been two more published works that are specifically about this person and not the shootings.
253:
1012:
605:
43:
306:
127:
1011:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
899:
210:
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
440:
Actually, she co-founded the first
Francophone school in Nova Scotia. And yes, a person can be notable even
257:
494:
177:
119:
65:
819:
650:
I removed it because it was not credible. I have since replaced it with a credible, verifiable source.
328:
955:
236:
895:
206:
994:
934:
828:
737:
716:
641:
572:
536:
519:
is that of "passing mentions" or "directory listings." Being the subject (and in this case, the
483:
449:
406:
340:
331:. The four subsequent AfDs were closed as "No Consensus" (all challenged and upheld in DRV) and
281:
947:
327:. The AfD you linked to was the very first inappropriately closed AfD in April of 2007 that was
232:
870:
809:
767:
679:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
887:
323:
Being the subject of secondary independent sources is the core definition of notability per
249:
891:
883:
729:
704:
633:
The source for that one point was originally there, but you came along and just removed it
564:
524:
516:
498:
324:
265:
261:
951:
849:
795:
753:
655:
624:
553:
506:
469:
431:
379:
356:
314:
296:
272:
184:
786:
916:
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jocelyne
Couture-Nowak (Feb. 19, 2008 nomination)
708:
528:
990:
975:
930:
824:
733:
712:
637:
568:
532:
479:
445:
402:
336:
277:
256:, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, the core criterion of
243:. There has not been any major change in policies or guidelines since the last AfD.
866:
805:
763:
675:
56:
157:
845:
791:
749:
651:
620:
619:
There is no source stating that there is a memorial scholarship in her name.
549:
502:
465:
427:
375:
352:
310:
292:
180:
274:
912:
231:
was decidedly and overwhelmingly "Keep." This nom is in violation of both
970:
692:
609:
374:
December 5, 2007 was not less than two months ago either, keep trying.
98:
Articles for deletion/Jocelyne
Couture-Nowak (Feb. 19, 2008 nomination)
804:
Feel free to, but that isn't a relevant matter for this discussion.
419:"It seems you didn't know this, but many people become more notable
501:
criteria. All you have is trivial coverage by secondary sources.
365:
It seems you didn't know this, but many people become more notable
567:
was created, so everyone doesn't qualify for article inclusion. --
523:
subject) of multiple secondary sources is the core definition of
497:
but that does not make them notable. This article does not meet
1005:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
104:
Articles for deletion/Jocelyne
Couture-Nowak (second nomination)
109:
Articles for deletion/Jocelyne
Couture-Nowak (third nomination)
92:
Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (6th nomination)
87:
Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (5th nomination)
82:
Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th nomination)
200:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
946:-- a waste of everyone's time to do this again. A clear
634:
164:
153:
149:
145:
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1015:). No further edits should be made to this page.
444:of their death, as per EVERY SINGLE SOURCE. --
176:Person only notable for being a victim of the
785:The Further Reading section is way too big.
8:
77:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak
989:as borderline disruptive forum-shopping. --
305:Not to mention this article has also been
397:, more than the standard 5 days, and it
198:: This debate has been included in the
74:
762:Guys, let's try to stay civil please.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
329:immediately overturned and relisted
72:
423:their death, as this person has."
291:appropriate for Knowledge (XXG).
31:
515:"Trivial" coverage as defined by
333:the last AfD was closed as "KEEP"
886:. I doubt she would have passed
369:their death, as this person has.
401:was overwhelmingly "Keep". --
241:WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED
1:
998:10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
980:02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
960:01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
939:01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
921:23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
904:21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
875:21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
854:21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
833:21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
814:20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
800:20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
772:20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
758:20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
742:19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
721:19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
696:19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
684:18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
660:18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
646:18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
629:18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
613:17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
577:00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
558:22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
541:19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
511:18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
488:18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
474:18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
454:18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
436:18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
411:17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
384:17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
361:17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
345:17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
319:17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
301:17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
286:16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
215:16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
189:16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
60:18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
636:. I've since restored it.--
711:. Iow, I agree with Rooot.
1032:
1008:Please do not modify it.
229:just over two months ago
39:Please do not modify it.
495:Virginia Tech Massacre
395:that AfD lasted 9 days
178:Virginia Tech Massacre
120:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak
71:AfDs for this article:
66:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak
707:& the criteria @
703:per memorialising at
307:approved for deletion
221:Speedy Close / Keep
818:Per long standing
958:
944:Speedy Close/Keep
880:Speedy close/keep
250:secondary sources
239:, not to mention
217:
203:
22:(Redirected from
1023:
1010:
954:
227:that was closed
204:
194:
167:
161:
143:
41:
27:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1013:deletion review
1006:
730:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL
606:Deletion review
163:
134:
118:
115:
113:
100:
69:
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1029:
1027:
1018:
1017:
1001:
1000:
983:
982:
962:
941:
923:
906:
896:David Eppstein
877:
859:
858:
857:
856:
838:
837:
836:
835:
816:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
745:
744:
724:
723:
698:
686:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
616:
615:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
544:
543:
457:
456:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
371:
370:
348:
347:
245:
244:
218:
207:David Eppstein
174:
173:
114:
112:
111:
106:
101:
96:
94:
89:
84:
79:
73:
70:
68:
63:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1028:
1016:
1014:
1009:
1003:
1002:
999:
996:
992:
988:
985:
984:
981:
977:
973:
972:
966:
963:
961:
957:
953:
952:Myke Cuthbert
949:
945:
942:
940:
936:
932:
927:
924:
922:
918:
914:
910:
907:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
878:
876:
872:
868:
864:
861:
860:
855:
851:
847:
842:
841:
840:
839:
834:
830:
826:
821:
817:
815:
811:
807:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
788:
784:
781:
780:
773:
769:
765:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
727:
726:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
697:
694:
690:
687:
685:
681:
677:
672:
669:
668:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
643:
639:
635:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
614:
611:
607:
603:
600:
599:
578:
574:
570:
566:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
546:
545:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
475:
471:
467:
462:
459:
458:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:
422:
418:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
391:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
275:
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:WP:NOTABILITY
255:
251:
247:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
201:
197:
193:
192:
191:
190:
186:
182:
179:
171:
166:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
110:
107:
105:
102:
99:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
1007:
1004:
986:
969:
964:
943:
925:
908:
879:
865:Looks fine.
862:
820:WP:CONSENSUS
782:
700:
688:
670:
601:
520:
460:
441:
420:
398:
394:
366:
228:
220:
195:
175:
52:
50:
38:
35:
987:Speedy keep
965:speedy keep
909:Speedy keep
266:WP:NOT#NEWS
237:WP:DISRUPT
671:weak keep
252:that are
991:Dhartung
948:WP:POINT
931:Alansohn
825:Oakshade
734:Oakshade
713:Eusebeus
638:Oakshade
569:Oakshade
533:Oakshade
480:Oakshade
446:Oakshade
403:Oakshade
390:last AfD
337:Oakshade
278:Oakshade
254:reliable
233:WP:POINT
225:last AfD
170:View log
888:WP:PROF
867:Johnfos
806:JoshuaZ
783:Comment
764:JoshuaZ
689:comment
676:JoshuaZ
521:primary
442:because
137:protect
132:history
57:John254
956:(talk)
892:WP:BIO
890:, but
884:WP:BIO
705:WP:NOT
701:Delete
565:WP:BIO
525:WP:BIO
517:WP:BIO
499:WP:BIO
325:WP:BIO
262:WP:BIO
223:- The
165:delete
141:delete
846:Rooot
792:Rooot
787:WP:EL
750:Rooot
652:Rooot
621:Rooot
550:Rooot
503:Rooot
466:Rooot
461:FALSE
428:Rooot
421:after
399:still
376:Rooot
367:after
353:Rooot
311:Rooot
293:Rooot
181:Rooot
168:) – (
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
995:Talk
976:talk
935:talk
926:Keep
917:talk
913:BRMo
900:talk
871:talk
863:Keep
850:talk
829:talk
810:talk
796:talk
768:talk
754:talk
738:talk
717:talk
709:WP:N
680:talk
656:talk
642:talk
625:talk
602:Keep
573:talk
554:talk
537:talk
529:WP:N
507:talk
484:talk
470:talk
450:talk
432:talk
407:talk
388:The
380:talk
357:talk
341:talk
315:talk
297:talk
282:talk
260:and
235:and
211:talk
196:Note
185:talk
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
53:keep
971:DGG
950:--
693:RJC
610:RJC
527:or
202:.
993:|
978:)
937:)
919:)
902:)
873:)
852:)
831:)
812:)
798:)
770:)
756:)
740:)
719:)
682:)
658:)
644:)
627:)
575:)
556:)
539:)
509:)
486:)
472:)
452:)
434:)
409:)
382:)
359:)
343:)
317:)
299:)
284:)
213:)
187:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
55:.
974:(
933:(
915:(
898:(
869:(
848:(
827:(
808:(
794:(
766:(
752:(
736:(
715:(
678:(
654:(
640:(
623:(
571:(
552:(
535:(
505:(
482:(
468:(
448:(
430:(
405:(
378:(
355:(
339:(
313:(
295:(
280:(
209:(
205:—
183:(
172:)
162:(
160:)
122:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.