Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

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 delete. Michaelas¹⁰ 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A French language instructor killed in the Virginia Tech shooting. Much of the article lingers on the status of her husband, who, unlike Mrs. Couture-Nowak, appears to meet WP:PROF. A claim for notability is as founder of École acadienne de Truro (article recently created), but I am unsure if this crosses the threshold for inclusion. Banyan Tree 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability given the events of yesterday. You clearly dont have to be notable before being murdered to be notable afterwards, eg Sarah Payne, SqueakBox 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see the possibility of a law being made because of this one person's death. Sarah Payne's unique murder and the creation of her eponymous law made her notable not the fact that she was murdered. Gdo01 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No she's not that good an example but i couldnt think of anyone els. I was going to change it to Amanda Dowler but as you commented I add it here, not as notable as Sarah Payne but notable enough to be here, SqueakBox 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some serious work, however. ---Lmcelhiney 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. In the aftermath of the shootings, it is difficult to judge whether her death alone confers sufficient notability; it does, however, confer enough noteworthiness such that we should wait on deletion, and give research into her credentials time to progress. Premature AfD, under the circumstances. Xoloz 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball - if you really believe your argument then that article should be deleted and then recreated if/when notability is proven at a later date.--Vintagekits 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so we must err on the side of exclusion! Got it. Hard disk space is almost as precious as oxygen, after all. Uggh 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not psychics on Wikipedia. We can't know whether someone will be notable or not. But we can't give people entries on the expectation (here, unfounded) that they eventually will probably have something notable about them. Pablosecca 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am sure she was a lovely woman and deserves to be remembered but wiki is not a memorial we need to satisfy WP:N to be included. A lot of the "keep" votes are very emotional but are not based on wiki policy. It is more than likely that this lady will become notable in the future, however, we need a little perspective on the recent events.--Vintagekits 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being, with no prejudice against or precedent set for a future RfA once everyhting sorts itself out. As for crystal ballism, I'm going to invoke a rare (for me) WP:IAR citation. Hell, I'm liable to argue for deletion in a week or so when there will be a greater sobriety among the community, but I would like to wait 'til that time. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it is shown that the subject meets inclusion criteria, which seems more and more unlikely. Wikipedia is by nature a passionless, emotionless, cold, disintersted reference tool and, as much as the shootings sicken us all, we need to keep the good of the project in mind here and not let memorials creep in. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to be the primary subject of notable independent non-trivial works from RS. The Behnam 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SqueakBox. The article will improve as more information becomes available over the next few days. BRMo 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, again more crystal ball and recentism. --Vintagekits 00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated above. FreshFlyFamous 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can you be rude enough to claim that this article, about an innocent woman murdered by a violent, viscious killer during the worst school massacre the United States had ever seen, is not notable? I am Canadian, and so is she, and I feel that she deserves her own little place, after being murdered by someone she never even knew. ens 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentLots of Canadians died today, do we give them all articles? Gdo01 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yesterday? and if they were notable in life or death they should be here, and if not then not, SqueakBox 00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well the user made no such implication, the user just said give the person "her own little place" because of "being murdered by someone she never even knew." The user never said anything like what you are suggesting. I'm okay with keeping her article but only for the right reasons based on her credentials as per WP:PROF not because she was killed in a mass killing. I just don't want people to retroactively start making articles for all the 9/11 victims just since rationales like the one here would justify an article for every single Canadian killed by someone they didn't know. Gdo01 00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not sure she meets PROF but I would argue the events of yesterday have made her notable, SqueakBox 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then why not articles for all the victims of 9/11, a clearly more pivotal event and more noteworthy event? Gdo01 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed! SqueakBox 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It is because not all victims of 9/11 were paid attention by the media. --Neo-Jay 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not all the victims of this tragedy were either. The only one I've heard the most about is the Holocaust survivor because of his heroism. Gdo01 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, then just listen more. You will hear. Don't rush --Neo-Jay 01:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But they were paid attention to. All the people in this Brit article look notable to me, SqueakBox 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "was a graduate student in Civil Engineering" is notable to you? Gdo01 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not of itself but this chap's failed degree doesnt make him notable either, SqueakBox 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What? That guy is the president of Honduras. Are you suggesting we should preemptively make articles for all the victims just in case one of them ends up being the president of a country? Gdo01 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well exactly (which is where I am, BTW) so being a graduate engineer says nothing about notability. IMO its her death that makes her notable, SqueakBox 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (reindent)So we all agree that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies and that notability must be established? Let's not reenact the entire discussion that led In Memoriam Sept 11th wiki to be disassociated from the Wikimedia Foundation and instead concentrate on how this article meets or does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in particular. - Banyan Tree 01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, because she is the victim of the WORST campus shooting in U.S. history and as a teacher has influenced many students and as a professor has influenced her field as well. The article lists other noteworthy professional achievements beyond her tragic death. --164.107.223.217 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete unless her notability can be established as per WP:PROF. Just being the victim of a crime does not make her notable. Please set emotions aside, this is an encylopedia not an obituary. StuffOfInterest 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per the clear concensus in this debate. Verifiable information continues to pour in every hour and this is already within the bounds of WP:PROF. A clearly ill-advised AfD nomination at the wrong time... Ranma9617 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Wikipedia is not a collection of obituaries. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she was notable enough for inclusion before she died, i am sure she would have been added before now. Her death means nothing to an encyclopedia, she helps not to increase the sum of human knowledge. --Jimmi Hugh 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles for more than half the heads of state from 150 years ago. Are they suddenly not notable now, either? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, allow me to rephrase. It is a great coincidence that despite no one feeling her improtant enough to create an article before her death, they suddenly feel it neccesary to make one, and (accidently i am sure) forget to include any of her achievements. --Jimmi Hugh 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, a lot of people here are lazy, so they only write about things when there are a bunch of sources within easy arm's reach. That kind of thing tends to happen when people die (as ten thousand newspapers run obituaries), so a lot of bio articles here get written right after the subject's death. Like I said below, I don't have an opinion on Couture-Nowak's notability yet, but to make a determination purely on the basis of when the article was created is crazy. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. –Outriggr § 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that people are still really worked up about the tragedy, and that the article has been in existence for less than 24 hours, why not close this temporarily and re-assess once things have stabilized a bit? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll second, as clearly people aren't thinking along notability guidelines right now. It was rather silly of me to think that they would. I'll even close it as "no consensus" if someone thirds this motion, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. - Banyan Tree 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I've said in the other AfD discussion, it is too early to delete these pages. Time needs to be given to see if they can be improved into a good article. The article itself is off to a good start, as it mentions her role in founding a notable school. So it's likely the article will turn out well. If not, it can be nominated later. GarryKosmos 02:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We don't know if the average person will, after the passage of time, remember any the victims, but sometimes one person stands out. For example, with the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, seven spaceflight participants died, but I think only one person, the teacher Christa McAuliffe, has remained notable or commonly remembered. For the 4/16 shootings, it may be Jocelyne Couture-Nowak who is remembered, or it may be someone else. It's too soon to delete this article.Que-Can 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, an MLA Bibliography search reveals not a single article or book under any version of her name I can find. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her former work describes her as a "French teacher". The BBC says "French instructor". I initially assumed that the link to her description at the VT French faculty page had quite properly been removed after the shootings, but the Internet Wayback Machine shows that she never had her own faculty page. While the article and several media sources describe her as a "French professor", the discrepancies highlight doubt as to if she had a doctorate. It is thus quite difficult to apply WP:PROF. - Banyan Tree 05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Many of the Delete comments are forgetting several important things. First, these articles have just been created (albeit it is possible by people whom do not know these individuals), so it takes time to transform a stub into a decent article. Second, the people who can best contribute to these articles are other professors and professionals ... however, we have day jobs and can not create well written and researched articles over night. I think we should play wait and see here. The primary difference between engineering professors and many other fields is the nature of the work is different enough. Being an engineer, I have a stronger feel of the worthiness of the engineering professors, but I am willing to say that my initial impression is that this article should stay as well. MCalamari 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT DXRAW 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This victim is noteworthy as being the only Canadian and Québecoise victim of this crime. The article will take shape in coming days and weeks. Various victims of other notorious incidents have been individually recognized (Columbine, et al) and this victim should be remembered as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jniel002 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - not notable enough professor. Doesn't seem to have won any prestigious awards, publications not particularly impressive. Compared to Liviu Librescu, who was also a victim, it is a joke. I know it's not a competition and both article could be included, but this article doesn't meet notability, IMO. WP:NOT a memorial. -Bluedog423^Talk 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability outside of getting shot. A murder victim does not a notable person make. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for involvement in Monday's massacre. --musicpvm 05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the other professor articles. If these people hadn't been involved with the Virginia Tech shooting, there would never have been articles. The primary basis thus seems to be about their involvement with the shooting, and what was that involvement? Being a victim? This can be easily mentioned in the main Virginia Tech shootings article, even if a short paragraph would be needed to describe the person's actions during this event (which may or may not be the case here). Tejastheory 06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Just because some users might not like the reason for the subject's "notablity", doesn't change the fact it passes our increasingly strict inclusion standards. --Oakshade 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add these published works to the article. The article currently has two links, the main subject of which is the shootings, but which mention this person. These are clearly not "features", as mentioned in "Multiple features in credible news media". I take strong exception to your implication that I believe that this person meets notability but am pretending otherwise for some ulterior motive. My sincere opinion is that nothing presented either here or on the article thus far establishes notability under any of the various criteria, though I more than half-expected a Wikipedian to find at least one clear reference by this point. - BanyanTree 07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's 3 for now - [1][2][3]. --Oakshade 07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. Your addition of these links to the article is the most constructive thing that's happened so far in this AFD. - BanyanTree 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No prob. I cam acrorss this AfD many hours after I read two of these articles. Was surprised nobody mentioned them. --Oakshade 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is almost certainly not notable as an academic scholar. Probably notable as a university teacher being killed on campus. (This is not a frequent occurrence, regardless of circumstances) In any case, certainly notable because of the circumstances. Yes, I think we will have articles on each. The first one proposed today Ryan C. Clark was apparently effectively deleted as a separate article, but the wrongness of what we were doing must not yet have been realized. If the public does not make the individuals notable, there will be time to delete them. I don't thing that's what will happen. WP is not primarily a memorial, but it some cases, its articles do serve very appropriately as a memorial for they record the public view., DGG 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable 76.109.163.61
Delete -- we should be clear headed -- this is not a moral question, we're not disrespecting this woman by not giving her her own article. It's a simple technical question, that, barring some extra substantive attention given to a high-profile murder victim, they do not deserve their own entry. Liviu Librescu's entry may have been prompted by the attention he sadly receives now, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have gotten an entry anyway, along with Kevin Granata -- these are the only names (besides the perp) who deserve their own articles. Pablosecca 07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's seems like an arbitrary POV. If the topic is the primary subject of multiple published works, for whatever reason, it passes even our most strict guidelines. I don't know about others, but I personally am not claiming the person is "notable" for moral reasons. --Oakshade 07:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That your for posting the link to the articles -- however, they were all written by virtue of her inclusion in the tragedy, and not because of her work during her life -- and they had a sort of "local focus" tone, as if meant for local sections of newspapers -- I just don't think that it's enough for notability -- we would have to give her that status before the recent events. --- Ironically the perpetrator of the massacre is notable for his act, because, macabre as it is to say it, that ended up being his life's work. I feel like reading Schöpenhauer ... Pablosecca 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, all of those articles focus directly on her work during her life. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "local focus" (I'm assuming you mean "local" as referring to the entire provinces of Nova Scotia and Quebec, or perhaps all of Canada). Some users attempting to ignore or block out content of entire regions is exacly why Wikipedia's policy is to avoid systemic bias. --Oakshade 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MCalamari --Witchinghour 08:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Squeakbox, Xoloz and Que-Can. I challenge all who voted otherwise to demonstrate how the world benefits from our deleting this article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because keeping it would set a precedent for the inclusion of all sorts of trivial articles on tragic victims, which cumulatively will degrade the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. Yes, we don't have the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we can start adding things wholesale just because "there's no harm in adding it" Tejastheory 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a memorial, even in times of sorrow. - Chardish 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrast this instance with the entry for Sarah Payne, who probably should be in Wikipedia. Payne's was a high-profile murder that inspired an important law, and other laws indirectly like Megan's Law for Megan Kanka. Also, Payne was the only victim, therefore we don't have the "no group" issues that we have with the Vtech incident. (why do I feel like the admissions dept of some club?) Pablosecca 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Renominate for deletion in six months. Lets just see how this whole incident pans out. I recommend creating an article on her husband, who does meet WP:PROF and attaching a merge tag to this article. A merge tag does not need to be acted upon quickly. Schools are notable, serious researchers are notable, but teachers are not usually notable. JeffBurdges 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she hadn't died this would have been prod'd without objection. Thousands of people are murdered every day and I can't see what makes her any more noteworthy than any other victim. If any sources that aren't obituaries - particualrly sources created when she was still alive - can be found then evaluate the article on the grounds of those, but as per Tejastheory above, WP:NOTPAPER isn't a carte blanche to create articles from every obituary in the paper - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because she can't be notable in death (Squeakbox) but because she wasn't the focus of the notable event that happened to involve her death. By the standard presented by many keepers, every single person who died in 9/11 is notable to have a Wikipedia page because they died in a notable event. That's clearly not a good standard to go by. Delete reasons: WP:NN, WP:PROF. Utopianheaven 11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as much as I feel sorry for Professor Nowak and would like Madame Couture-Nowak to be kept in fond memory, I don't think she is a notable person by merit of her own achievements. She did have the extreme misfortune of being killed in a rather notable incident, but this can be dealt with within the incident's article (i.e. a short bio note for every victim anything relevant can be said about). PrinceGloria 11:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely not notable for reasons other then the person's death. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated immediately above. President David Palmer 13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep While many people enjoy carrying the banner of WP:NN in the abstract as though one day someone comes along and awards you a certificate of notability, this article should be a speedy keep per WP:NN (Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" furthermore meeting all the notability criterion below), per WP:PAPER I don't think any single person will come along and say "Damn! Why was this article included?!", per WP:CSD and WP:DP the article does not meet the criteria "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject", and per WP:IAR lighten up. Madcoverboy 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Jauerback 14:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the École acadienne de Truro meets standards for notability, then (from what I read in the article under consideration) she should be mentioned there when that school's article is expanded from a stub to a full article. Otherwise, let her memorial be elsewhere. Does (or should) every individual victim of Columbine have his or her own page? Does (or should) every VT victim have his or her own page? Does (or should) every victim of 9/11 have his or her own page? All of these deaths are notable. That's why they are mentioned on Wikipedia... but they are typically NOT split into separate articles; rather, they are grouped together as short mentions in an article about the tragedy as a whole.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.9.120.8 (talk • contribs).
Delete as not passing WP:PROF. Or still better, redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Tizio 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. What she did doesn't make her notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. The fact that she died recently doesn't make her more notable than victims of other massacres. I suggest you create a dedicated Wiki for more "ordinal" people. I also suggest that you refrain from adding "speedy keep" votes since this AfD voting is valid. — JyriL ^talk 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, nominate for deletion in 3-6 months if nothing else about this woman pans out to make her famous.Lan Di 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the combination of her WP:PROF credentials and her highly publicised death covered by the media internationally make her notable. — Jonathan Bowen 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Mme Couture-Nowak fails to meet WP:PROF by and large, she was a French instructor at a higher education institution, and with all due respect to all the hard-working French teachers in the world, this hardly even makes her an academic. You would have never heard of her unless you had classes with her or worked for Virgina Tech, or knew Professor Nowak for that matter, if not for her tragic death. PrinceGloria 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's not the subject she taught (French) that is at question here. She fails to meet WP:PROF because she simply was not notable enough in the field. There are plenty of French professors (it appears she was only a lecturer, possibly without even a doctorate) who clearly meet WP:PROF. She does not appear to be one of of them. --Crunch 10:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above; I feel there's far too much of a rush to delete here. HipsterDad 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In some people's opinions, there has been too much rush to create new articles rather than building out existing articles to the point where the content warrants separation to a new article. --StuffOfInterest 17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - How is this not suited for an encyclopedia? It's a person that was involved in an historic event, in more ways then one. I've seen pages on here devoted to total nonsense. Internet memes, old pranks, web sites, barely known companies... surely if Atlantic Southeast Airlines destinations and Qian Zhijun get to have articles, then so should this. Coolgamer 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not in favor of keeping any of those two you mentioned either, feel free to AfD them and I will support you. As concerns "being involved in a historic event" (btw, this event is rather moving and tragic, but I don't think it qualifies as historic), I do not think it is enough to become notable. Can you name all the people who were together in the bunker with Adolf Hitler in his last days, or how about an article for every passenger of the Titanic? PrinceGloria 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree with you there. It qualifies as "historic". --Oakshade 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a matter of opinion, but the more important issue here was outside the parentheses. PrinceGloria 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any event both record-breaking and covered by the media for almost over 24 hours qualifies as part of history. Coolgamer 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Part of history" does not equal "historic". Bill Cliton's extramarital affair was a major newsitem for months, and it still isn't "historic". I mean, it didn't change much in the history of the world, and I really don't think nearly as many history books wold refer to it as to the Gulf Wars or 9/11. Still, this is NOT the point here. The point is the person the article is about is not notable. PrinceGloria 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history is historic. If you don't think so, that's your opinion too. And the Clintion affair and impeachement is extremely historic that will likely be studied by history students as long as the US exists. You were the one who brought up the topic of the shootings being "historic" or not. --Oakshade 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Many events are historical, and yet we don't have articles on every single person involved in it. Tizio 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If the person is the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works like this person is, we do.--Oakshade 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All those "nontrivial works" are either listings of people killed in the shooting or obituaries. She would've probably never appeared in the media given her achievements that we know of if not for her tragic death. It doesn't make her notable. PrinceGloria 18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read the sources before commenting on them. All of these non-trivial published works are primarily about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, not "listings" or about any of the other victims. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. This is the primarly "notability" criterion for WP:BIO --Oakshade 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Conversely, please read the entirety of my comments before replying. Those are exactly the kind of obituary-like pieces I was referring to. Some of them are also rather embarassing examples of low-quality journalism, but that's another thing and not that relevant. Anyway, they do not assure notability, as they only refer to some tidbits of Mme Couture-Nowak's bio a journalist could dig out to illustrate the "news" on her passing by. PrinceGloria 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You had charged the sources as being "are either listings of people killed in the shooting" and you seem to conceded that that was an incorrect statement. And these aren't even obituaries. The are articles by reporters and editors of major news outlets writing about this person as primary stories, not on the obituaries pages and certainly not just a blurb submitted by family members on the back obituaries page. --Oakshade 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It was not an incorrect statement. I was referring to "nontrivial works" mentioning Jocelyne Couture-Novak in general, not whatever is linked from the article. Many of those do only mention the subject of the article listing the victims (even though, in strict sense, those are nontrivial works mentioning the person). Secondly, those kind of articles qualify as "obituaries" in my book, even if they aren't in the strictest sense. Those articles have only been created written because the person was killed in a highly-publicized incident, not because the person was notable herself, and do not assert her notability in any way. PrinceGloria 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That just means you're employing WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the reasons the person is notable. If tyou think that major publications choosing to write multiple published works primarily about the person, (obituary or not) means the person is not "notable," then that's your POV. CBC News, Radio Canada, TQS and The Chronicle-Herald all dissagree and found her "notable" enough to write stories primarily about her.--Oakshade 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe it is plain obvious media only mentioned her because she was a victim of the shooting and information on her proved relatively easy to gather, while the news outlets needed to somehow fill the news slots assigned to this topic with some "new" info. Rather than try to bend the WP policies to serve a rather doubtful cause, I'd rather we employed some common sense here. That said, lex specialis derogat legi generali and I have just been reminded a relevant former exist in the form of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. PrinceGloria 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter if you don't like the reasons they wrote about her (far more than "mentions" you claim), but the fact is multiple media outlets did. Notability is not subjective. We don't choose who is "notable", reliable sources do. --Oakshade 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The stories you cite above do take Ms Couture-Nowak as a subject, but those aren't sufficient criteria. They are focusing on her as a way of elucidating the details of the tragedy. This is akin to someone doing a piece about what X student's personal experience was during the incident -- that random student does not then deserve her own page. To put it another way, the stories about Ms Nowak are not about her so much as they are about further reporting the tragedy. Pablosecca 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Elucidating? I had to look that one up. Actually, her being the primary subject of multiple non-trival published works is most certainly criteria. They are about her and her life, not at all akin to "X student's personal experiance was during the incident". Employing WP:IDONTLIKEIT as for the reasons of her being the subject of all those articles is not a proper reason to ingnore our strict inclusion criteria. --Oakshade 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I fully accept that she is the subject of the articles you linked above. I also accept that they are about her and her life. Finally, let me say I like her and her article as such. But the simple fact is the articles were written as a result of her death. Other murder victims have their own individual pages, but in such cases they were made prominent (posthumously) by copious media attention for one reason or another. Cf., Megan Kanka, who gave her name to Megan's Law. Now: if in the next few weeks, some information comes to light about Mme Couture Nowak, and she gets attention from major news media or what have you, then she probably will be notable. Focus pieces (the articles you linked) don't suffice because they are inherently based upon the event, not the individual -- that is to say, take any nonfamous random professor in the world, put them in Couture Nowak's (tragic) position, and she/he'd still get the same attention -- not from the same sources, of course, but they'd get attention -- if she had been from Texas, local Texan papers would be writing articles about own of their own dying in such a public way. Got it? Pablosecca 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I "got" that the multiple ariticles about her were inspired by her death. But that's just it, they're still written about her. We have the clause Notability is not subjective for a reason. We can't just arbitrarily apply our core guidelines to how we see fit. To say "Yes, she's notable and passes our guidelines, but I don't think the reason she passes our guildelines is suffeiciant" completely negates the existance of our core guidelines. If she was the primary subject of mulitple published works by reliable sources, for whatever reason, she passes WP:N and WP:BIO very clearly. If you choose to WP:IGNORE our core guidelines and apply them arbitrarily, ie: "She passes WP:N and WP:BIO only because of her death", then its an example of how frivolous our guidelines are. --Oakshade 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict)The impeachment is, the affair not so, I guess. I mean, if we didn't know anything about the whereabouts of Miss Lewinsky and the kinky details of whatever happened in the Oval Room, we could still study the legal case. I do like this discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that the article is eligible for deletion anyway. PrinceGloria 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All sentimentality put aside, this individual does not warrent an article because of lack of notability by her own merits. The only reason why an article was created for her was due to her untimely death in a horrible tragedy, and yet we do not have articles for the other victims -- because of notability issues. Just because she was an instructor does not make her notable; she fails WP:PROF. The reason why there are not articles for every single victim in any massacre should apply to this individual in question. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable for reasons other than her death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingOfExtreme (talk • contribs).
Keep. Sufficiently notable. --Eastmain 18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:PROF. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Even pushing for a school to be opened, by a provincial agency, is not real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. The main article on the shootings should cover it; there will be plenty of victim memorials in appropriate places. Ckessler 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF. TomTheHand 19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:PROF. Flavourdan 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MAKES NO SENSE - why is SHE deleteable when Kevin Granata and Liviu Librescu, also instructors killed in the massacre, are not? Illogical!! HeberMK 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Read WP:PROF. Notability has to be established beyond being a victim. Those two are full professors which make them more likely to have some scholarly activities establishing notability. --StuffOfInterest 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep Around For the love of God, she's one of only a few faculty victims in a histori shooting, has some notability for professional achievements, and because of the media coverage, people WILL want to learn more about her for at least the time being. Y'all shouldn't be so quick to delete! We must always err on the side of INCLUSION! --172.166.196.253 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — 172.166.196.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep WP:PROF does NOT apply here as this professor's notability is not contingent on acadamic standing. Re-evaluate again later. I believe she is notable as the victim of the worst school shooting in US History. This issue is too emotionally charged right now to be fairly evaluated. Eclectek ^C ^T 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue seems emotionally charged only on the "keepers" side. I don't see much emotions in the, rather valid, arguments for deletion based on WP policies. If WP:PROF does not apply (and the article doesn't meet it anyway), then it has been already established that the person in question is not notable on her own. PrinceGloria 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, this person does. Per WP:N: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This person adhears to the letter of WP:N. --Oakshade 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, WP:BIO would be the applicable policy. But, first and foremost, there is WP:MEMORIAL, which common sense would suggest to see as overriding all else mentioned. PrinceGloria 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope that these "let's keep it and see how it pans out" opinions are regarded as invalid by the administrator, as they don't state a valid policy reasoning.Pablosecca 21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Huh? I hope not as those comments are valid, SqueakBox 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. If an article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, it should be deleted, and not kept in anticipation of once meeting them. If that approach was widely instilled, the inclusion guidelines would effectively become totally ineffective ;) PrinceGloria 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not notable; would be willing to reconsider if additional evidence were produced. --ElKevbo 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a memorial, does not meet WP:PROF. MSJapan 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF doens't apply here as the person doesn't have an article due to academic acheivements. WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO do. --Oakshade 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Next time I get pounced on for wanting to keep an article topic that's not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the primary crierion of WP:NOTABILITY (and belive me, deletionists will pounce hard), I'll point to this AfD as an example of the arbitrary relevancy of our inclusion guidelines.--Oakshade 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't like "wait and see" only because it leads to inclusion of people like Kristi Yamaoka and an inability to delete them despite years going by without a mention of them, and no work done on the article except in the news-blast aftermath of an incident, basically because someone thinks that it's OK to keep them if they don't meet guidelines. What we need is a prohibition or moratorium on creating these types of articles in the first place within hours of an event - if time elapses and the subject is still relevant, that's a different story. MSJapan 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO, and is notable. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Where this appears to conflict with "not a memorial", the primary criterion takes priority. She is now the multiple non-trivial published works, regardless of whether she was before. --Eastmain 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Couture-Nowak is the object of several articles in credible news media (which primarily reference her, not the shooting). Therefore she is notable within Wikipedia's meaning of notability and is independently notable of the shooting event. Furthermore, were we to merge all her biographical details into the Virginia Tech massacre article, this would not add to readers' understanding of the shooting. Keeping them here adds to readers' understanding of Couture-Nowak. Greenshed 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the above comments i realize that people who want to delete this are cynical. But seriously, WP guidelines say, WP is not the place to honor people who have recently died. The subject's notability should have been claimed BEFORE her death - OR - something remarkable about her should have occured in the incident. Keeping this is abuse of WP. Medico80 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those are the wisest words written here. That said, I tend to believe at least some of the people aredntly advocating keeping are being pretty cynical in fact. PrinceGloria 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually many people have articles here based on having being murdered Amanda Dowler being one of them, and these articles have been here months and years. So how is this an abuse of WP when notability established by the nature of death has so much precedent here (at least hundreds of articles), SqueakBox 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I loathe drawing such comparisons, but with all due respect, the death of Amanda Dowler and subsequent investigations give her a substantially better claim to notability than our subject here. Her death was moving and tragic, but at the end of the day there isn't much more to say about it that she was shot by a psychically unstable man among many other victims that day, while no other element of her biography makes her notable in any way. I must say I really find it emotionally revolting to write about a recently deceased person that way... PrinceGloria 23:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many media outlets wrote much more about here than being shot. In fact, they wrote many full articles primarily about her. --Oakshade 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - For sure, but they only wrote about here BECAUSE she was one of the persons shot, and perhaps because they could gather some information easily. There isn't anything of note about her in any of those articles. PrinceGloria 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your opinion of what relaible sources wrote about her doesn't matter, but the fact is reliable sources did write mulitple stories about her, whether you like why they did or not.--Oakshade 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am afraid thinking does have to be employed when applying WP policies... PrinceGloria 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, redirects are cheap, no afd necessary. dab

(𒁳) 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BrenDJ 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember this is not a vote. This is a search for consensus regarding policy. If you have a particular perspective, please elucidate it with a rationale. Pablosecca 04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable academic. Victim of VT shooting can be covered in Virginia Tech massacre. Crunch 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming people-articles need to be assessed by notability REGARDLESS of death, and that death MAY make one notable REGARDLESS of other notability tests, I believe that this article should be kept for now, and then the community should consider MERGING people of lesser notability into the main incident's article, or make another article titled "victims of virginia tech massacre". Notable professors should keep their article. Furthermore, I'd like to add that if space is not the issue, then we should keep ALL articles as is, as long as they are properly written. Romancer 18th April 2007
Strong Keep Deserves to be remembered. --132.170.35.167 07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every deceased person deserves to be remembered, but they don't all get an article in this encylopedia. They have to pass certain notability standards. My uncle Phil and my childhood dog, Spot, both also deserve to be remembered, but they're not getting articles here. --Crunch 10:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very non-notable - she's just a teacher! Just because she was killed in a school shooing does not deem her notable enough for an article. Weatherman90 00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteThis article was created as a reaction to the VT shootings, the history itself says created from "news sources" unreliable at best, there's not even a published date of birth for this person!? Shabby original research at best, this article isn't fair in doing the subject justice in such close relation and association to the VT shootings. This person can and will be remembered without the help of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.215.101 (talk • contribs) 19:39, April 18, 2007 — 76.23.215.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete/Merge NN, should be consolidated with other victims TSim 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete eventually--yes; delete this week,no. Delete when it makes good sense to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.198.210 (talk • contribs) 21:22, April 18, 2007 — 76.5.198.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as per many arguments stated above, as been only known as because she was a victim of the shooting--JForget 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I love teachers just as much as anyone and I really feel terrible for her and her family. But there cannot be articles for all the victims and there can't be articles for all teachers. She didn't seem to be a full professor and didn't have any published works. It's been a day and anyone could have added more research at this point. Perhaps she could have mention in her husband's article; he seems to meet notability standards. She was notable as a very nice French teacher, but she is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Gloriamarie 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Her only notability was her death and that can be mentioned elsewhere, like her husband's page or the victims page. Death is not a criterion of WP:PROF Gizza^Chat ^© 04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, clearly meets the notability standard due to press coverage. Possibly merge onto a consolidated victims page in the future, if such a page would not be excessively long (I suspect it might be). Everyking 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. Not otherwise notable aside from how she died. As Gloriamarie states, we cannot have articles for all the victims simply because of the manner in which they were killed - there has to have been notability prior to the death (although not in all cases, but this isn't really a special case), and there doesn't seem to be any. We are not a breaking news source - that is what Wikinews is for - and we aren't a memorial, either. --Coredesat 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter why she's notable, but the fact is she is notable and passes the letter of WP:N through mulitiple publshed works by reliable sources being primarily about her. --Oakshade 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it does matter very much. Wiki policies are written as guidelines, and not immutable laws - it is rather frequent that two policies would be in conflict, such as WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BIO (to some extent) here. What you need to do is just use common sense to figure out what would the spirit of the regulations in question suggest. Perhaps this whole discussion signifies the need for a slight alteration of WP:BIO, but it doesn't change the fact that the person in question became of interest to the media solely because her tragic death, which does not make her notable. PrinceGloria 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's rendering the very core inclusion criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as frivolous. To say "Well, this topic might be notable and pass WP:N, but it should be deleted because [insert arbitrary argument]" is a demonstration of the farcical application of our own guidelines . What if somebody wants to keep an article topic that has absolutely no published works about it? Can they say "WP:N is only a guideline, so it should be kept because [insert arbitrary argument]"? I doubt anyone but the most ardent inclusionists wouldn't stand for that. The fact is this person is the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources, whether we like the reason she's the subject of all of those works or not. Notability is not subjective. --Oakshade 09:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now, what we have here is WP:BIO standing in opposition to WP:MEMORIAL on the issue - it is not an arbitrary argument, it is a standing WP policy. Actually, WP:BIO and all notability guidelines are, well, guidelines, and thus are somehow less "powerful" than WP policies, if you prefer to go legal about it. But in my understanding such conflicts should be resolved using common sense. It is fairly obvious why the media wrote about Mme Couture-Nowak - no matter how many details they dug out (and there weren't that many of them), it was still all about a victim of the shooting, not a notable persona on its own. It has nothing to do with me liking it or not, it just is that way. Or would you be willing to prove she was ACTUALLY notable (WP criteria aside) for anything else than her tragic death? PrinceGloria 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        While the primary inclusion criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO are adhered to and WP:MEMORIAL is a sub-clause buried in the page WP:NOT, it isn't in opposition to our most basic of inclusion fundamentals that this topic passes. Besides WP:MEMORIAL doesn't even apply here. Read the text of it in full... "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered."... This article wasn't written about somebody's grandpa that otherwise had no published works about them. That's what WP:MEMORIAL was written for to prevent and doesn't at all apply to Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. It doesn't in any way negate article topics that have been the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources.--Oakshade 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my mind, Wikipedia has as its main strength the fact that it is able to quickly adapt to the proliferation of information that is available in the "information age". I don't see the rush to delete a person who sadly passed away in a highly topical event. To my mind, this makes the page notable. Later, after the dust has settled, notability can be revisited and it can be put up for deletion again like other minor participants in historic events. Dr Aaron 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment - well, one of Wikipedia's unwritten features is the ability to filter the overabundance of infotrash typical for the information age and retain only what is really valuable. As to your last sentence, the notability guideline clearly states that notability does not change with time, so if the person is not notable, she will not be - unless we will learn of something that would make her notable, in which case an article can of course be created. PrinceGloria 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed, even in times of sorrow WP is not a memorial.. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My condolences. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Bluerです。^なにか? 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think it is utterly clear that the subject of this article fits the criteria in WP:N. This shows that WP:N needs to be rethought. In the meantime, let's apply Ignore All Rules; it obviously wasn't *meant* to be covered by the notability policy, and we shouldn't treat it as if is regardless of what the literal wording demands. Ken Arromdee 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a notable victim IMHO --Vlad|-> 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete and redirect to List of victims of Virginia Tech massacre page. Though I disagree with most of the proposed deletions of the prod-happy people who have proposed deletion on just about everything else having to do with the shootings outside the main article itself, in this case I find that unlike three other profs who died there who have their own articles, Ms. Couture-Nowak does not have sufficient notability per WP:BIO to warrant her own article, & is sufficiently covered in the List of victims article. --Yksin 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On further reading of WP:BIO criteria for notability (which of course are just a guideline anyway, not a policy, & currently much disputed), I have decided to change my vote back to keep. Regardless of how "notable" she was by those criteria prior to her death, the circumstances of her death may render her notable in a manner beyond simple memorialization. Some recent coverage has indicated that her actions when her class was under attack are also worthy of note. --Yksin 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with the list article. This article reads like an obituary. D4S 19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:PROF. Yaf 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a memorial, not notable. 165.234.90.1 21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because a) she is notable, b) she fulfills WP:PROF. Wayyyy too early to delete someone who is part of an active and historically important news story as well. --172.162.46.70 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She is not notable, being murdered does not make you notable when you were one of many victims. She definetly doesnt fulfill PROF, she has no achievements at all. Also, Wikipedia is permement we do not add something becasue it is kinda somewhat related to the news then delete it later. Something active is not also historically important. This is a blemish on the time line and i pray we don't become pathetic enough to consider it more --Jimmi Hugh 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Comment. While this person is not notable for anything except being murdered, we do have articles on 'college football players' noted for 'dying of heatstroke' or gunshot victim. So, even though I think a person like this is not notable, Wikipedia is already watered down far enough to make this article acceptable. The bottom line: Wikipedia replaces 'expertism' with 'popularity by the masses.'R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, we simply haven't got around to deleting every non-notable person from the site. But please do place links to non-notable people noted only for their death on my talk page and i will make sure i put them up for deletion. Policy, not mass stupidity is the usual choice for these things. --Jimmi Hugh 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deletes above. Fails WP:PROF. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Resolute 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This person is of great significance because of her Canadian identity. This is one of the main things that links Canada to the Virginia Tech massacre. I think that many Canadians have been very involved with following this event because of her. It is precisely because this woman with a proud French-Canadian identity died in this massacre that the RCMP and the Canadian government are now taking steps to protecting schools in Canada. If you have any doubt of the notability of this person just type her name into Google News or see the "Further Reading" section on the bottom of her page and see the numerous articles just on this one individual... it outsurpasseses all the other victims by far. The media, but most especially the Canadian media saw it fit to have lengthy articles on just this one person. Why not here?HelpfulUser 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of all the comments here that say "keep" for the wrong reasons, this is probably the worst one. "But she's Canadian" doens't count IMHO :-/ Medico80 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. People aren't notable for dying horrible deaths. Titanium Dragon 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. It is the massacre that is notable and is attracting all of the attention, not her. There is no evidence that she is notable outside the massacre.--FreeKresge 03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the massacre article. Laacks notability. -Phoenix 03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:PROF. No other notability exists that would warrant a seperate article. Rafy 04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:PROF. --Ragib 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:N? WP:N states very clearly A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. And the person passes WP:BIO too. WP:PROF doesn't apply. WP:NOT applies to people who do not pass WP:N. --Oakshade 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with the users directly above me. Fails notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, our notability policy says that 'Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".' and '"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."' By the literal wording of the policy, she's in fact notable, despite not being famous or important, because there are articles about her. The policy is just broken. Ken Arromdee 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. I ran up against a similar problem a few months ago while trying to have Al Gore III deleted. Like many of the VT victims, he hasn't really done anything notable himself, but he attracted independent media attention anyway for reasons beyond his control (i.e. the identity of his father). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She sounds like a fine person, and her death was tragic. The same applies to thousands of people who are murdered every year, but Wikipedia is not a memorial book. She does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. My views correspond to the essay WP:NOTNEWS, that an event may be newsworthy without being a suitabe topic for an encyclopedia. When the references all are related to a single news event their affirmation of notability is questionable. See also WP:N where Note 3 says "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." Her part in the events on Norris that day should be included in the main article.Edison 14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep loads of info here that is published and not suitble in other articles, therefore it is notable as an article on its own. There is also minimal repitition to other articles (good work to the contributers). +mwtoews 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as DGG V1^t 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not a memorial, not an obituary 199.94.78.104 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People will want to know about the victims of this event. It's informative and notable. (Bjorn Tipling 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep She appears to barely meet the primary notability criterion, namely that she is the subject of multiple independently published articles. I should mention this is a very weak keep, however, since the references do not appear to cover much of a time span. References should appear over more than a brief span of time to ensure true independence among the sources and that the article isn't simply a bit of localized zeitgeist on a particular subject. By the way, note that deleting this biography doesn't mean the pertinent material on her can't be merged into an appropriate article about the event. So even if this article is deleted that doesn't prevent the important facts of the article from appearing in Wikipedia. Finally note that just because an event is notable doesn't mean that everyone involved is notable. Thousands of people died in the September 11, 2001 attacks but that doesn't mean we should have an article about every single victim. So as a general rule just because a particular crime receives massive international attention doesn't mean that every single victim of the crime needs a seperate article. Dugwiki 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dugwiki. Much of the coverage is not just about her in relation to the massacre, but about her life in general. If this article is deleted, I ask that we all be honest with ourselves and recognise that deletion in this case is a rather clear case of invoking WP:IAR. The argument that "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't hold water in this case as it makes a clear exception for people who meet the notability criterion. -- Black Falcon 17:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to merging highlights into main VT incident article) While the event was notable, the person isn't on her own. If we end up with articles about multiple victims, I'd have no objection into merging into a List of VT Victims article if there isn't one already.
Keep per Dugwiki RaveenS 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - isn't this part enough? "was instrumental in establishing the École acadienne de Truro, the area's first French language public school under the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial." to have her considered notable, and then added to her courageous actions during recent events?Justanothermutt 00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in the establishment of a public school? No, not enough. And "courageous actions"? She was gunned down and there is no basis for saying that she saved anyone. Sorry, she is just a victim.Medico80 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I'm pretty new to this (and excited to learn and be a part of the wikipedia community), so I don't know all the ins and outs of what would be 'notable' enough and such - When I read "instrumental in establishing", it seems a bit more than just "participating"..?.. The 'courageous actions' part, I was going from what I read in the current article about her trying to save her students and losing her life in the process... Justanothermutt 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Notable enough for a subsection of the VTM page; not for her own bio yet. 18.85.18.16 02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After her death, her accomplishments have received sufficient attention to make her notable enough. These will be remembered on a scale worthy of an entry. Tfine80 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it, change it, take the facts of her life accomplishments and write a good article about the lady who started a french school in what was once Acadia and is now Nova Scotia. look at it closely

Comment If you read WP:BIO, you find the sentence "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." While the coverage for Couture Nowak may not have been trivial, it is strictly incidental. The Oxford English Dictionary defines incidental as " 1. a. Occurring or liable to occur in fortuitous or subordinate conjunction with something else of which it forms no essential part; casual." This individual's notability is subordinate to the narrative of the tragedy at VTech. Pablosecca 04:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The multiple non-trivial published works about this person are all focused on her life and work, not an "incident". An incident inspired the reliable sources to write about this person, but that in no way makes the content of all the published works about her "incidental." --Oakshade 07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course the newsitems go beyond her being killed, as the description of that fact would hardly exceed the length of one sentence, but the fact is that, as of now, she is only of interest to the media due to her recent killing. If reports on her would appear in the media over a longer span of time, I guess it would make a better claim for notability. As of now, the coverage is "incidental". PrinceGloria 09:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oy. I give up. Pablosecca 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least for now. Does not pass WP:PROF, this is not the place for all victims from all killings or attacks around the world and time will show if she will pass WP:N. ArchStanton 09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PROF --24.200.156.62 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC) — 24.200.156.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per SqueakBox --Rita Moritan 13:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Does not meet WP:PROF~~Insufficient notability. I almost regret I wasn't there to be killed and hence become notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia.--Kamikaze 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF doens't apply as this person's "notability" is not based on academic stature. The person passes WP:N and WP:BIO as being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. --Oakshade 18:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alrighy, then.--Kamikaze 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youngamerican makes a good argument although the way he says it sounds almost like a deliberate caricature, but the basic idea holds true. BanyanTree, Rbelln, Nyttend and María also make good points. It appears that even the people advocating keeping acknowledge at this point that the article does not meet WP:PROF. The argument must therefore be made under WP:BIO. However, longstanding precedent is that in general victims of tragedies whose lives are reported in detail merely due to their being victims of horrific events does not count for purposes of WP:BIO. See WP:MEMORIAL as well as many precedents set by among other things, the myriad of Sept 11 AfDs and many articles about individuals who have died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Cases like Sarah Payne are different because her death led directly to knew laws and regulations named after her. I strongly doubt that there will be any Couture-Nowak law made after this. This woman died tragically, and maybe even would have become a notable academic in her field if she had survived. However, she does not at present meet standard inclusion criteria. JoshuaZ 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - she nobly defended her students; had she been a soldier she would have been awarded a medal. What is not notable about such a death in such circumstances? --DevelopedMadness 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Um what? If she were a soldier we wouldn't have an article about her so I fail to follow your logic. JoshuaZ 20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Another Strong Keep for all of the many compelling and convincing reasons given above. This accomplished instructor, one of only a few professors killed in a historically and news-worthy disaster definitely merits encylopedic attention as well. --24.154.173.243 20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopedia articles are not dispensed as means of recognition. I actually believe the rather laughable attempts of purporting exceptional qualities to Mme Couture-Nowak are in fact almost insulting her as a person killed in such circumstances... PrinceGloria 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worthy of inclusion to all intents and purposes. <KF> 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note this is NOT a vote, but a discussion. The decision would be made based on WP policies and guidelines and not personal convitions of whether the person in question is "worthy" or anything. The controversy here ensues as to the interpretation of policies and guidelines, so it would be good to get acquainted with them before joining the discussion. PrinceGloria 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's leave it at that. I'm not going to teach you about Wikipedia policies, and you are certainly not going to teach me about them. <KF> 00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your above comment is the exact antithesis of an actual discussion. It presumes an inability and unwillingness to either exchange ideas or consider changing your mind. It is not at all helpful. JoshuaZ 00:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank God Wikipedia policy is vague on the notability criterion. If it were not, there wouldn't have been any need, or place, for the above discussion. While it's true that Jocelyne Couture-Nowak probably wouldn't have her own article today if she hadn't been killed, her death is not the only reason for the article. As I see it, some notability and her violent death in a well-documented shooting add up and influence each other so that her article is justified. This is my opinion, and I have expressed it in just one sentence: "worthy of inclusion to all intents and purposes". This, I believe, does not express any inability or unwillingness to change my mind. Rather, it expresses what I think about this matter at the moment. The "You have your opinion, I have mine" refers to the preceding sentence, i.e. to whether I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies or not: PrinceGloria suggests I'm not, whereas I think I am. <K F> 07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see what you say. For me, the acid test (or maybe that's too strong a phrase), or the big factor, is if I when I read an article, there's a sort of center or call it hook, to the article, which makes one go "Ah yes, that's why it's here." When I read the present subject's entry, I see a lot of details and bio notes, and I feel very much for the woman, but her reason for separate inclusion, the VTech incident, to me reads a footnote more than anything. Pablosecca 10:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. People are coming to Wikipedia to search for her name specifically; clearly she's notable. She founded a school in Nova Scotia and acted heroically to protect her VT students. Fellow VT faculty victim Granata didn't found anything yet his entry isn't up for deletion. I'm tempted to call this misogyny. --Gisaster25 08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't play the misogyny card just yet; I think the thinking is that Granata has been called prominent in his field, (eg, | Granata is a world expert) while Librescu performed a widely hailed feat of heroism -- and therefore both merit their own articles; whereas; the other professors were accomplished, or they would be professors, of course; but not notable in their own right to deserve mention outside the VTech article. Founding a school in NS isn't enough; and there are tens of thousands of professors in the world. Thoughts? Pablosecca 10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree the misogyny claim is unfounded, but Librescu is not being included because of claims of heroism. He meets and exceeds WP:PROF. If Couture:Nowak did, there would be little argument about her inclusion. --Crunch 10:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.