Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th nomination)
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
— User:Pablosecca, 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO||WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)