Deletion of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

Comment: If you read , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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 . The argument must therefore be made under . 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 . See  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:MEMORIAL)