Talk:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

message: We've been reminded that if you want to discuss the pros and cons of deleting the article, then visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and make your arguments there.   This discussion/talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article.  Thank you.Que-Can 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   This is not the "proposed deletion" forum 

message: This is an obituary, not an article. Delete. AnonHat 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, she could have died at home of natural causes and no one would have noticed or made an article about her.  Wikipedia is not a memorial.MSJapan 21:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you look at the biography articles for victims in :Category:Virginia Tech massacre, every single one has been proposed for deletion or merging into Virginia Tech massacre.  Several others, especially for student victims, have already closed and been merged.  Of the bio articles, only Talk:Liviu Librescu and Talk:Kevin Granata indicate that the deletion discussion has closed in favor of keeping the article.  There was consensus on those two articles that the subjects met Wikipedia's notability guidelines at WP:PROF (a subset of WP:BIO) and would have merited an article when alive, entirely separate of their status as shooting victims.  Current discussion on the remaining victims, including Mrs. Couture-Nowak, is more splintered, with some arguing that status as a shooting victim is not notable and others arguing that it is. You are welcome to join any and all of the ongoing discussions. - BanyanTree 23:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is funny (strange) to be eager to delete articles that are receiving so much attention and reader interest. It is not difficult to find other Wikipedia articles of other victims of other horrible incidents or accidents.  Furthermore, as more news from this shooting becomes public, it may turn out that a number of the victims were heroic, and therefore perhaps "notable." I wouldn't be too hasty to delete any articles at this time. Later...maybe.Que-Can 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't create articles simply because something is receiving a lot of attention at the current time. If there is some relevant info that is important, we can include it in the general article. And btw, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not create articles simply because someone may become notable in the future. If the people are already notable by merits of the carrier then all contributors have to do is to show this and these articles should stay. This has already occured for two of the professors. In absence of that, this article should be deleted until and unless these people become notable by merits of their actions. Conservapedia for example is a prime example of how these things should work. An article was created prematurely when conservapedia was clearly not notable. Over time, it grew more notable and the article was recreated. (Ideally articles should not be created if something is not noteable, but if it does occur, it should be deleted and it doesn't preclude an article being re-created in the future.) Also, if we do have articles for people who are only notable for being victims and didn't become abnormally notable as a victim for whatever reason, then you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. The existance of other crap doesn't mean we should keep crap we come across WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Nil Einne 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that wikipedia is not one of the trusted sources of information doesn't mean it isn't something we aspire to or that we should continue to allow crap on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not intended as a memorial service and never has been. Nor has it been a place for people to 'have their moment'. If contributors can't accept this, they should choose somewhere else. At a guess, I would say Conservapedia would love to have memorial articles on Americans so you could try there. Also, there are several guidelines for help in determing notability but it's amazing how often the people complaining about deletions haven't actually read them. Nil Einne 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's just an awful argument to be made for leaving in an "article."  It doesn't even read like one, it reads very much like an obituary.  In its current state, this article should be deleted or vastly restructured because, presently, this shouldn't be an encyclopedia entry anywhere.  Rewrite or delete, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a repository for obituaries.J 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Honestly, why would you need to delete it? There are millions of articles on this site that make little to no sense, talking about bullshit that doesn't matter. If you're gonna delete this, why not delete the killer in this massacre too? He has a meaty page with lots of contributers, and there's no talking about his deletion. Leave it on here.Stonesour025 10:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A man who killed 32 people is, frankly, far more worthy of an encyclopedia entry than one of his victims, whose only notable feat is dying at a murderer's hands. He is also of a greater importance to this issue than any of the individual victims can claim, and from an encyclopedic standpoint, that is all that matters. 147.72.97.69 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: I think an article like this should be left in. I think dying in an extraordinary event like the VT Massacre is enough to warrant a bio. Aren't there bios for people who died on United 93?
The event at VT is still very, very new. The effect on the culture as a whole is still playing out. The folks who were killed played a part in a story that is still being told. As the days and weeks follow, there may be more to say about each victims part.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.27.63 (talk • contribs) 
:Regarding your question, no, there are no biographies on Wikipedia of the people who died on  United Airlines Flight 93 or any other 9-11 victims whose sole claim to notability is being killed in the attacks.  In Memoriam Sept 11th wiki was the first sister project to Wikipedia, but its relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation was discontinued after the goals of the two, in part on the policy of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, couldn't be reconciled. In any case, the decision on what to do with this article won't be made here but in the deletion discussion, so weigh in there if you want to be heard.- BanyanTree 01:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To correct the above statement, there are in fact several Wikipedia articles on people who died on United 93.  Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, and Tom Burnett just to name a few. --Oakshade 07:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  leave it in 

message: To everyone dealing with this page who voted for or against its deletion the first time: please note that there is a new, second vote for deletion; the first discussion was completely tossed out. So if you voted on the first one, but haven't let your voice be heard on this one, and feel you need to, please do so. Titanium Dragon 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Vote for Deletion 

message: Since I guess this is being kept because of her involvement with Canadian schools, those who know more about her should really put more into the article, like was done with Prof. Librescu.  As is, the death section takes up an altogether too large proportion of the article.  I'd add, but I've not a clue about her except what I read on here.  Nyttend 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrs Couture-Nowak's involvement with Canadian schools basically boils down to teaching at one and being among the three parents who pursued setting up another one - that is, except for attending some schools. Anyway, all that is covered more than sufficiently. I am sorry to disappoint you, but the article is more than exhaustive in its coverege of the subject... PrinceGloria 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO editors should never be discouraged from improving and expanding an article.  If an editors feels there's nothing that can be expanded, then that's just an opinion and others are likely to dissagree.  --Oakshade 00:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find anything worth adding, please do. I wouldn't like Nyttend to remain under the false impression that the article is unfinished, when it is actually comprehensive and complete. PrinceGloria 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinion and your concern for another editor. --Oakshade 00:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear the remaining noteworthy details to be unfolded by historians regarding this biography are few; still as such, if anyone can find anything, more power to them. If not, despite weeks of work, in some time, probably within months, someone will put this back on AfD, whereupon, voted away, it will sink gently into the great oblivious vast expanse of ignominy, wherein it very likely belongeth. Pablosecca 05:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You sound bitter that there wasn't a consensus to delete this article.  Notability is permanent, but thanks for the POV.  --Oakshade 06:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the admin made a very weak decision ruling "no consensus" without providing any further explanation. The debate of this article is hardly over. If the justification for this article still is, "whoa, she is Canadian", "she participated in building a (non-notable) school" and "she got shot", then I'm ready to vote delete in any AfD. 194.239.195.65 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a very good decision as there cleary was no concensus.  The justification for keep was passing our strict notabilty guidelines and not "whoa, she is Canadian" or whatever other straw man arguement you may want to create. And many are ready to vote keep in any AfD. --Oakshade 15:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Oakshade, maybe you should look up the history of the "Gay Nigger Association of America" page (what was it, 18 nominations for deletion before it was finally deleted?). Notability is generally permanent. Rockstar (T/C) 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very familiar with the history of the GNAA article and also recall someone tried to cite that as a precedent when nominating Cleveland Steamer for AfD for the 7th time.  Some editors dismissed that AfD as AfD process abuse or WP:POINT. --Oakshade 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I think the gist of "no consensus" is ipso facto not permanent -- the admin -- questionably or not -- decided that there was no sufficient agreement; that means that the article exists as a sort of default. And I'm sure we'd all appreciate you not changing the names of pages that you're citing, because the word "generally" makes all the difference. As for this article, I think we will meet again on the field of onions. Pablosecca 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigtime expansion needed 

message: I hate to start any sort of argument, but the content of this page seems to be missing, perhaps my ability to traverse wikipedia history is terrible but i don't seem to be able to find any record of this page containing content other than that of the fact she died. Also for some crazy reason not one of the references refers to anything but the Virginia Tech massacre. I have obviously overlooked something but could someone tell me exactly why she is notable beyond the fact someone killed her? -- Jimmi Hugh 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Life and carreer" section, which has about the same amount of content as the "Death" section, is not about the fact she died.  She became notable due to the massacre.  After 2 AfDs and 2 DLRs, that was a very contentious issue. --Oakshade 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: *I've often heard that dying in a notable event is not sufficient to cause notability. Can anyone point me to this policy or guideline? Canuckle 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BIO lists six general criteria for notability of people: (1) subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject; (2) subject of a credible independent biography; (3) received recognized awards or honors; (4) demonstrable wide name recognition; (5) widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field; and (6) commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products. Dying is not one of them, so dying in a notable event does not, by itself, make a person notable.  On the other hand, a person's death in a notable event could lead to the person being the subject of published secondary sources, a credible independent biography, or to having wide name recognition. So dying in a notable event does not preclude a person from being considered notable if they meet any of the six general criteria (or any of the criteria for specific fields). The case for the notability of Ms. Couture-Nowak is based on criterion (1). BRMo 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I would have considered her - and similar cases - under #4:  demonstrable wide name recognition. There's ample evidence of her name being published due to Virginia Tech. How wide? Canada-wide recognition would suffice for notability. Nova Scotia-wide or French-Canadian-wide should also suffice as regional notability, however, these cases do seem to be more debated. What do you think? Canuckle 09:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability because of Virginia Tech 

message: *It's not been long since the event occurred. Does anyone know what her husband has been up to? Has he engaged in any activites of notability himself (writing a book about her, public speaking about it?) Perhaps that's asking too much but, aside from the immediate aftermath of the event, have any sources talked about her in a notable way?
Canuckle 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Virginia Tech notability 

message: *I think this question is a valid one but will be more easily answered once the above questions are answered. So let's re-visit this in due course. Canuckle 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You know, the Canadian section of Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre is pretty poor. If there was overlapping content there or elsewhere, you might find support for a merge or two. For instance, one problem I have with redirect to the list of victims is that it's mostly about where they died. There's no room for reaction (eg Harper's comments) and long-term response (bursaries, memorial gardens, etc.) Canuckle 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth a stand-alone article apart from Virginia Tech? 

message: I'm not sure whether or not you should delete it, but I think that if you keep it, it should be translated into French as well, due to her being a native of Montréal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.73.182 (talk • contribs) 11:34, July 30, 2007
:You're welcome to start an article in fr.wikipedia.org.  --ElKevbo 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Translation 

message: This section is way too big.  WP:EL indicates that external links should be kept to a minimum.  In fact, most of these links do not contain any additional relevant information, as they are all just more obituaries.  I suggest we remove the entire section.  Rooot (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This tool identifies several problems.  Rooot (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Unilateral deletion of an entire section is considered vandalism (I see on Rooot's talk page, this isn't the first time this has been pointed out to them).  Those few "issues" are simply linking issues and in no manor invalidate the valid sources; print sources are always valid.  Removing sources that editors can reference to establish notability during an AfD can be seen as a bad faith effort, especially if that AfD nominator is the user that removes them. --Oakshade (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks make not a good editor.  The bold edit was suggested to me on the AfD page.  Instead of attacking me, try fixing the article.  Rooot (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rooot, according to the edit history of the current AfD, you're the user who suggested the removal of the entire section  and nobody "suggested it" to you.  After your own suggestion another editor responded.  Resorting to misrepresenting your own and other editors posts is a true form of personal attacking.  --Oakshade (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try the truth.  In response to my suggestion to discuss removal of the section: "Feel free to, but that isn't a relevant matter for this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *The truth:  First post that "suggested" removing the entire section... "I suggest we remove the entire section. Rooot (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that English is not your primary language, so I will try to keep this as simple as possible.  I said "I suggest we remove the entire section [....]"  In response to that post, "Feel free to, but that isn't a relevant matter for this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Now, I know this is hard for you, but a native English speaker would understand that this conversation flows as such:  1.  Suggestion for discussion of future action with proposal for future action.  2.  Support for future action proposed.  3.  Action taken.  Rooot (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now that you've felt the need to resort to childish personal attacks to illustrate your self-contradictory point, please now put your energies to improving the article instead of attacking editors who are doing so. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting you would say that considering that you continue to replace a useless citation for the purpose of establishing notability for this article.  There are plenty of other valid sources here.  You have yet to even attempt to fix the citation.  It is clearly useless, but you just have to win this at all costs, no matter how ridiculous the measures taken are.  That citation would warrant an expulsion from any reputable academic institution.  Rooot (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That is fine by me, somewhere I encountered a wikipedia article that used the terms "Further Reading" and "External Links" synonymously.  Rooot (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading section 

message: From WP:VERIFIABILITY: 
"The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
A citation that lacks a page number, or even a section is useless and does not belong on Wikipedia.  The current citation would be like citing "The Bible."  Rooot (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be obvious which citation I am referring to as you keep replacing it without even bothering to check it.  If you think this citation is CLEAR AND PRECISE enough to enable readers to find the text, that is one thing.  But I doubt any reasonable person would agree with you on that point.  How many pages were in that issue?  How many sections?  Was the text on page 1 or page 51?  Do you even know the name of the article?  Without this information, the cite is not precise and not clear, thus should not be left in.  Rooot (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On that specific date, the Richmond Times-Dispatch likely has only a few stories, if more than one, regarding the VT shootings.  Also likely this story would be either the primary front section or the Metro/Virginia section, both of which have about 15 pages and much of those pages are primarily advertising.  A reader can easily and quickly scan through those two sections to find the article entitled "Virginia Tech graduation: Tears mix with joy as victims are honored." --Oakshade (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, of course, was not included in the citation that I removed.  All it had was a date and a newspaper.  No author.  No page.  No title.  It is ok now, but you need to understand that the information included in the previous citation was UNACCEPTABLE.  Me thinks you have waaaayy to much personal stake in this article since you couldn't see that the citation was completely inappropriate from an objective standpoint.  Nevertheless, I am done here.  Rooot (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It included the date.  Even without the title, the article could've been easily found with only the source name and date.  Correcting vandalism and WP:POINT AfD nominations, both of which you have committed to this article, is what's important.  --Oakshade (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:Citations is a useful guideline (not policy).  Those specific guidelines are ideal, but does not mandate the removal of less specific citations, ie without a specific page number of a newspaper reference. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 1- I noticed that the Death section contains a text passage pointing to a source which conflicts with another. I've also noticed the usage of unreliable interpretations. The Death section in debate in this Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak (Hereafter "JCN") page contains the following text passage:
::After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door 8, Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called. The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful. 9 Couture-Nowak and 11 of the 22 registered students 10 died. Couture-Nowak died in front of the door 10 and next to the teacher's desk. 10.
2- First of all, after thoroughly reading the Washington Post source referred to in [8], anyone can readily observe that it's contents is not about the topic of this JCN page, but rather a recount from students and witnesses of what happened in different classes and area at VT on April 16, 2007 (see copy: http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/7811).
3- Secondly, after reading the source articles referred to in [9] and in [10], anyone can ascertain a match of context simply because the articles relate prominently to the deceased Teacher, her students, what happened in that class, and the deceased Teacher's contributions, etc.
4- Thirdly, upon closer inspection of all sourced articles, anyone can observe that there are conflicting versions regarding recounts of Clay Violand's testimonials. The debated JCN text passage where it reads "After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door [8]," obviously refers to "Violand, feeling panicky, pointed at her and said, "Put that desk in front of the door, now!" She did, and then someone called 911." provided by the Washington Post. However, the sources contained in the JCN passage "Couture-Nowak and 11 of the 22 registered students [10] died. Couture-Nowak died in front of the door[10] and next to the teacher's desk.[10]", refer to a Los Angeles Times article which also happens to contain the following text: ""Put the desks in front of the door!" cried Clay Violand from the back of the room, as students scattered onto the floor, lying behind desks. The professor pushed several lightweight desks made of metal and plastic in front of the door. She backed up against a wall."
5- There is a discrepancy here regarding what has been articled in the sources relative to the interpreted recount of Clay Violand's testimonials. The final interpretation used in this JCN page is controversal and notoriously unreliable. Shouldn't it be the Wikipedia editor's utmost duty to make absolutely certain that source content be cited/referenced/interpreted adequately and within context, be used wisely and appropriately, and never conflict with other source material invoked in the same Wikipedia page? What WP Policy allows this? What WP Policy disallows this?
6- I advise amending the Death section in a manner consistant with editorial scrutiny and WP Policy. Since other Wikipedia subject-matter already informs, in an objective manner, on the details pertaining to the VT massacre, and in keeping within the proper context of this page, I advise to amend the Death section accordingly:
::Couture-Nowak was teaching an Intermediate French class in Room 211 at Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, 2007 when she was killed by Seung-Hui Cho during the Virginia Tech massacre. Couture-Nowak, whom adoring students called "Madame" 9, was 49 years old when she died 10.
Bingo! Simple, straight to the point, relevant, coherent, reliable, no controversy, and everything in context and in accordance to the sources used. Complete details of the massacre are easily in reach via the internal Wikipedia links provided. This edit also reduces duplication and inconsistency between Wikipedia pages offering the same type of content.
A consensus on this request for amendment? Please justify your position.
Do not edit or add comments above. Comment below this text (you may want to refer to the numbered paragraph if need be in your comments). just (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *After reading contents of source articles and arguments advising amendment, does the challenged JCN text passage exposed in paragraph 4 contravene WP Verifiable Policy? Does that passage warrant WP:REDFLAG? just (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *After reading contents of source articles and arguments advising amendment, does the challenged JCN text passage exposed in paragraph 4 contravene WP No Original Research Policy WP:SYNTHESIS?  just (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *After reading contents of source articles, and according to relevant WP Core Policies and Guidelines, does the JCN text passage, exposed in paragraph 1, rely on the testimony and chronology of events reported in source articles? just (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *For "2" The Washington Post article most certainly supports the content in this article.  The source states "Violand, feeling panicky, pointed at her and said, "Put that desk in front of the door, now!" She did, and then someone called 911. The desk could not hold back the push from outside. The first thing Violand saw was a gun, then the gunman. "I quickly dove under a desk," he recalled. "That was the desk I chose to die under."Your "anyone can readily observe that it's contents is not about the topic of this JCN page, but rather a recount from students and witnesses of what happened in different classes and area at VT on April 16, 2007" comment has nothing to do with anything.  There is absolutely no requirement in WP:RELIABLESOURCES that the entire body of work of the sources must be fully or even partially about the Wikipia article topic to support any of its content. For "3", that's a big "so what?".For "4", if there's a slight conflict of what is reported by two sources, then edit the article taking into account the discrepancy., For "5", which is basically an extention of "4", just simply type out the diferences, if there are any, between the two.  You've not convinced anyone that the Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times are "notoriously unreliable."For "6" your version simply erases the sourced information about her killing.  You've provided no valid reason for removing it. If you keep on removing it, it will keep on being reverted by other editors as it has been.  I suggest you start a request for comment if you don't agree with the other editors. --Oakshade (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendment of Death contents. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070419174813/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/montreal/story/2007/04/17/qc-quebecvictim20070417.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/04/17/qc-quebecvictim20070417.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070422184717/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/04/20/nowak-memorial.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/04/20/nowak-memorial.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811171421/http://www.vtmagazine.vt.edu/memorial07/today.html to http://www.vtmagazine.vt.edu/memorial07/today.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121215143128/http://www.vt.edu/remember/biographies/jocelyne_couture_nowak.html to http://www.vt.edu/remember/biographies/jocelyne_couture_nowak.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130201150812/http://www.roanoke.com/vtvictims/wb/113515 to http://www.roanoke.com/vtvictims/wb/113515
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified