Deletion of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th nomination)

Comment: The person has been the primary subject of multiple published secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, the core criterion of  and .  The topic became notable due to the shootings. Just because some users |don't like the reason she became notable doesn't suddenly make her non-notable. "The world" decides if someone is notable, not Wikipedia editors.  There's too much topic-specific content here to be redirected to the already long List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:BIO||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I think we're tending toward legalism again here, and losing sight of what's best for Wikipedia. Arbcom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed_decision#BLP_applies_only_to_living_people here could not approve a statement affirming that BLP applies only to the living. While  pithily formulates an opposition to creating entries for people notable for only one event, it does so partly under the rubric of privacy, which is why it's throwing some people off. But BLP1E echoes what is clearly in , which states that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The argument I'm trying to get across, as are others, is that the coverage Ms Couture Nowak received was essentially trivial and incidental -- totally under the aegis of the events at VTech. There was no reason to single her out except in the rush to get any kind of copy about the story, to think of new angles to cover the story. Emily Jane Hilscher, for instance, one of the first victims, has several articles "about" her -- http://chronicle.com/news/profiles/2093/emily-jane-hilscher for instance -- but of course they're really about the VTech story, about fleshing out the characters in the drama as it were. Also, can anyone seriously argue that  applies here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: per above, or delete. In reality, |Wikipedia isn't a memorial
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: or '''Redirect''' to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre.  On the strengths of the article (and it's references) in their present form, there is nothing to assert notability other than the shooting (which fails  - ''"If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"'').  It's theoretically possible that this person is notable enough for inclusion without being particularly well known (per ), but no assertion of that notability is made in either the article or any of it's references
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NPF)

Comment: Several of you are saying that this person is ''"clearly notable"'' under the criteria in  and .  I'm not looking for a fight here, and I will gladly embrace that argument if it is true, but saying that she is ''"clearly notable"'' under those criteria does not automatically make it true.  Please could someone explain to me exactly what criteria in  and  applies to this person, and for what reason.  I'm trying to be very precise here because some of us have two particular concerns about this article.  On there own these are not reasons for deletion, but they give us strong reason to suspect the implied notability of this person.  My concerns are
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: per #NEWS - She was only notable for one incident, with no "historic notability" as  requires
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: to List of Victims. This is a clear-cut example of  and #NEWS (and yes, BLP applies to the recently deceased). Every single source used in this article was written after her death. Period. There is ''nothing'' to establish that she was notable before becoming a victim, as harsh as that sounds. Again, this is a clear violation of our policies. If you don't like that, change the policies, but redirect in the meantime
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOT)

Comment: per Propaniac.  Pablosecca's case is eloquent and accurate, and frankly, at this rate I'd love to see a  variant for crime victims all around for whom their only notability comes from fluff wasn't-she-a-swell-fellow? encomiums from the survivors in the ten days immediately following the tragedy, and not thereafter
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre per Propaniac.  She does not need her own article, as she was not notable before the shootings. I'd like to point out to the nominator to |assume good faith and refrain from stating "too many administrators view AfDs as being little more that vote-gathering sessions".  Sounds like you are introducting presumptions upon editors, and your "I don't care what the consensus is, as long as it's either ''delete'' or ''keep'' isn't exactly true because if that was the case you wouldn't have made the previous statement.  Obviously there have been quite a few good discussions for both ways (keep and delete), and more often then not, the longer a discussion gets (usually a lot of both keep and delete recommendations) that it ends up in ''no consensus'' because it would not be fair until there is a majority consensus of one way or the other
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: to list of victims. Clearly fails  and only is in the newspapers as one of many victims in a massacre. We do not have memorial articles. No sources to show she was notable other for being in the wrong place at the wrong time for a few horrible minutes. Cover the event, not the victims
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I was considering closing this as all keep arguments are essentially the same thing, and are all shut down by , but this was nommed a day ago so I'll give it time. Anyway, as stated in , there is ''nothing'' notable about this person except the Vtech event.  '''1 event'''.  Ring any bells?  I dunno, it reminds me of ...All the new sources concern the EVENT, not the PERSON, thus this person is only notable as a participant of the EVENT.  Therefore, the article should be redirected to the EVENT that asserts their notability, not as an individual, but as someone who took part in an EVENT
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per  and #NEWS.  She is not notable independent of being a victim, and the best place for her obituary is List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOT)