Deletion of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (second nomination)

Comment: I must be repeating myself, but this well-referenced article passes both  and  by a landslide. Again, nominating this for AfD was ill-advised in the first place
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF)

Comment: to the list of victims.  Per #MEMORIAL, her tragic death is not grounds for notability, and Canadian media reports to get a share of the pathos cannot be used towards meeting .  As I noted when I started the first AFD, the only possible grounds for notability I see is "was instrumental in establishing the École acadienne de Truro, the area's first French language public school", but more context is needed on how important this is.  Given the fact that nobody seems to have reported this when it actually happened, it seems unlikely that this will help
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BIO)

Comment: Several people have expressed their *personal* opinion on whether *they* think this person is notable.  Those opinions are essentially worthless and irrelevant.  The question is whether she's been found notable by *external* reliable sources.  This is indicated by those sources writing about (.e.g. "noting") the subject non-trivial.  This has been done.  Whether she "earned" it, or had it while she was alive, or what the reasoning behind it, is not important.  Please, leave you personal opinions at home, and follow the sources.  For a long time, notability was used despite the complete lack of an agreed working definition.  But, since we have an actuall working definition for it in , we aught to actually use it. Also, this "redirect to list" nonsense is utter rubbish., and violates OT.  We're not a source of lists of people killed.  If there wasn't sufficient non-trivial coverage, then nothing should exist under the article title, not even a redirect.  Also, please read , before mentioning it.  That's for people known just to family and friends.  If people can just put aside their personal bias, and look and independent sources, and their coverage, this is pretty straightforward.  We can not function effectively if if AFD is about subjective tests.  That would mean, we delete articles based on whoever happens to show for AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOT||WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: The subject of this article clearly meets the essential Wikipedia guideline for |notability - "subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  She's been the subject of articles in national newspapers of two countries and the article is already well documented using multiple excellent sources. Unfortunately, some of the opponents here seem to be appealing to elitism rather than following Wikipedia guidelines for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as per my http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FJocelyne_Couture-Nowak&diff=123784157&oldid=123780315 comments on the original AfD. Thousands of people die every day, many of them in notable circumstances, but unless there's something particularly unusual about the victim, the article should be about the event and not the victim. There seem to be few if any reliable sources on her dating from before her death (sitting on the fence slightly here, as there may be more in the French language press); as I've said previously,  isn't a carte blanche to create articles from every obituary in the paper, even if multiple obituaries are technically multiple independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: Arguements citing "multiple sources" are extremely misleading. : ''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.'' This--a lack of ''intellectual independence'' in the "multiple sources" cited--is clearly the case, here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: I can't add anything to the reasons above, subject's entry is predicated on her status as the only Canadian victim of a high profile crime (see ), as to her other attributes, clearly fails .  No one here has provided any more evidence than has been sufficient to retain countless other deleted articles of similarly non-notable academics
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL||WP:PROF)

Comment: per all above. |Wikipedia is not a memorial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: Here we go again :-/ I stand by all my previous comments on this article. Uhm, what can I say... she participated in the establishment of some school somewhere in Canada, allright. Doesn't meet  IMHO. Then she got shot and died like the 31 other victims, that's it. I'm not sure what the "keepers'" rationale is. Clearly, a lot of Canadians feel that their country deserves to be represented in this well-covered incident. I strongly disagree with those who say that the fact that she has been mentioned in other (Canadian) media, is enough reason for inclusion. And saying that AfD on this is "bad faith" is about as good as those who said that deleting Waleed Shaalan was "islamophobia" and "white supremacy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The crime was notable, but the victims were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, like passengers on a crashed plane or a boat sinking. That some of them took obvious steps to save their and others lives, like holding the door shut to keep the shooter from coming back in,  is not a notable event anymore than handing someone on sinking boat a life jasket or pressing the stewardess call button when you saw the airplane engine on fire would be. Some of the victims got multiple trivial mentions in news stories for a few days, which does not satisfy  or 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: to Virginia Tech Massacre. We shouldn't rely on those reports as the reason for keeping the article. If this person is notable, so is basically every 9/11 victim who received an extensive media coverage due to reaction to his death or the way he died. We have previously deleted (see Wikipedia:9/11_victims#Archived_discussions|archived debates) several such articles regardless of apparent media coverage, and I would normally foresee a similar result here. Furthermore, if all biographies on Wikipedia are constructed to only focus on major aspects of notability, this one would contain the sole sentence: "Jocelyne M. Couture-Nowak (1958 - April 16, 2007) was an instructor of French in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia and was a victim of the Virginia Tech massacre". Either continuing to her personal life as a non-notable teacher, or focusing the entire article on the way she died, would be entirely unencyclopedic. I believe this is a good example when we should |ignore all rules and simply |apply common sense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:UCS)

Comment: to Virginia Tech Massacre and the list of victims. She played a part in the tragedy and should be appropriately mentioned in the main article. But Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the article is largely a memorial page:"..had a deep love for children..proud French Canadian.." Although she was an instructor, the article does not satisfy . Being mentioned in news stories does not automatically confer notability, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news magazine. See the essay  which gives the views of several editors on this issue. Also see note 3 of  "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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N)

Comment: per . Ms Couture-Nowak has been the subject of multiple reliable sources that are independent of her and intellectually independent. The arguments for deletion are based in a subjective notion of "inherent notability". As editors, we shouldn't make that judgment, as it violates Wikipedia:No original research. If others consider a topic "worthy of note" by writing about it, then we have proof that it is notable; in this case, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was deemed "worthy of note" by various sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: My feelings on this are conflicted but keep in mind that all the |notable portions of her biography are tied to the fact that see was killed in the VT killings
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: does not meet , and the sources about her are incidental - |incidental sources do not confer notability by themselves. If there are other sources that show notability for something other than the massacre, then they should be presented, but otherwise being a victim alone is not sufficient for notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reema Samaha and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan (though the closing admin should not use these as any sort of precedent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: Does not appear to be notable per  and just being the victim of a crime does not make one notable. Thow in  for good measure.  Same as for my http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FJocelyne_Couture-Nowak&diff=123689217&oldid=123688756 previous view on the AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: Meets WP:BIO.  Is the primary subject of multiple 3rd party non-trivial published works, like from the Canadian Press, Radio Canada,  ''The Globe and Mail'' ''The Gazette (Montreal)'', ''The Daily News (Halifax)'' and ''The Toronto Star'' .  doesn't apply as it refers to non-notable people who don't fall into our standards (this isn't an article about someone's grandfather that has no published work about  them, not to mention multiple major national ones) and  doesn't apply as she's not notable due to her academic achievements.  The article is highly referenced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL||WP:PROF)