Deletion of Dominique Prieur

Comment: the article seems fairly well sourced now which suggests to me that the subject has received significant coverage in a range of reliable sources. The coverage also seems to be spread over quite a period of time and is international (French, British, NZ and Australian) and includes both news sources and books etc. As such I'd say it meets  and therefore . I am a bit dubious about the "first woman French secret agent" claim though as I am sure there have been countless other French women that have been involved in any number of intelligence operations over the last few hundred years (either officially or unofficially). I imagine then that it must be a question of definitions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: as a mixture for having a fair amount of coverage thanks to the event but also the fact that notability is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: see point 3 to : she is at least as well known in NZ as Hinckley is in the USA - in fact her notoriety in NZ is on a level with that of Mark David Chapman. The event for which she is notorious was described by the French government themselves as a terrorist act, before the truth came out about their involvement - and it took place in a country where any sort of terrorism is extremely rare - Mafart and Prieur are the only persons convicted of anything I'd call a terrorist act, in NZ, that I can recall
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Being the first woman French secret agent makes her sufficiently notable even without the most unfortunate Rainbow Warrior incident (as they would say in Japan). Passes all three points of exemption in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)