Deletion of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (5th 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 multiple published works are about her, her life and accomplishments and what she meant to the people she knew and grew up with. #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 #NEWS' "a brief appearance in the news."  The coverage has been lasting and substantial.  Even #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 month, seven months after her death, there has been two more published works that are specifically about this person and not the shootings. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:HckptABXilQJ:thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/977200.html+%22Jocelyne+Couture-Nowak%22+chronicle&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=ushttp://www.trurodaily.com/index.cfm?sid=78366&sc=68.  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:NOT)

Comment: Looks like its |snowing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: transient but significant news coverage in . Borderline between the transient nature of the coverage and the extensive nature of it. Err on the side of retaining info
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: She was the subject of numerous articles here in Canada, and her notability was more than just extended coverage of the massacre. And I adopt the reasoning in the last nom as to why  does not apply here.  '''Furthermore''', I have to say that this fifth nomination is verging on abusive.  It is becoming to difficult to |assume good faith at this point.  Simply because "there's no rule against bringing it again if there was no consensus last time" does not mean that doing so again is appropriate or warranted.  I really wish that the nominator had heeded the advice of the admin that closed the last nomination, namely:"Since both camps are of roughly equal size and employ defensible policy arguments, this is essentially an editorial decision, on which we have no consensus. May I suggest that AfD no. 5 be deferred until something happens that is very likely to change that outcome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:AGF)