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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak[edit]

Person only notable for being a victim of the Virginia Tech Massacre Rooot (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close / Keep - The last AfD that was closed just over two months ago was decidedly and overwhelmingly "Keep." This nom is in violation of both WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT, not to mention WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. There has not been any major change in policies or guidelines since the last AfD.

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 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. 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 WP:NOT#NEWS 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 months after her death, there has been two more published works that are specifically about this person and not the shootings. [1][2] [3], 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. --Oakshade (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 appropriate for Wikipedia. Rooot (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this article has also been approved for deletion. 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. Rooot (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of secondary independent sources is the core definition of notability per WP:BIO. The AfD you linked to was the very first inappropriately closed AfD in April of 2007 that was immediately overturned and relisted. The four subsequent AfDs were closed as "No Consensus" (all challenged and upheld in DRV) and the last AfD was closed as "KEEP". 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.--Oakshade (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rooot (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't know this, but many people become more notable after their death, as this person has.

December 5, 2007 was not less than two months ago either, keep trying. Rooot (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD 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 that AfD lasted 9 days, more than the standard 5 days, and it still was overwhelmingly "Keep". --Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems you didn't know this, but many people become more notable after their death, as this person has."

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. Rooot (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she co-founded the first Francophone school in Nova Scotia. And yes, a person can be notable even because of their death, as per EVERY SINGLE SOURCE. --Oakshade (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE 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. Rooot (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Virginia Tech Massacre but that does not make them notable. This article does not meet WP:BIO criteria. All you have is trivial coverage by secondary sources. Rooot (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" coverage as defined by WP:BIO is that of "passing mentions" or "directory listings." Being the subject (and in this case, the primary subject) of multiple secondary sources is the core definition of WP:BIO or WP:N. 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.--Oakshade (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Rooot (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 WP:BIO was created, so everyone doesn't qualify for article inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 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 Deletion review, 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. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source stating that there is a memorial scholarship in her name. Rooot (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that one point was originally there, but you came along and just removed it [4]. I've since restored it.--Oakshade (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it was not credible. I have since replaced it with a credible, verifiable source. Rooot (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep 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. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment 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? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per memorialising at WP:NOT & the criteria @ WP:N. Iow, I agree with Rooot. Eusebeus (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL (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.--Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rooot (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, let's try to stay civil please. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Further Reading section is way too big. WP:EL 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. Rooot (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to, but that isn't a relevant matter for this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per long standing WP:CONSENSUS 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 any external sources that can establish notability during an AfD, particularly if the content is removed by the actual nominator. --Oakshade (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rooot (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks fine. Johnfos (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close/keep. 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 WP:BIO. I doubt she would have passed WP:PROF, but WP:BIO 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. As the subject of multiple independent, nontrivial articles in national newspapers of at least two countries, Couture-Nowak clearly meets Wikipedia'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. BRMo (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close/Keep -- a waste of everyone's time to do this again. A clear WP:POINT -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep 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. DGG (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as borderline disruptive forum-shopping. --Dhartung | Talk 10:08, 20 February 2008 (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.