Deletion of Frances M. Vega

Comment: the legacies and honors don't seem to be notable.  The Bronze Star medal alone does not meet the notability criteria for .  The naming of the base post office wasn't even long term as only the sign, and not the name, was relocated when the base closed.  The addition of a name to a memorial for fallen military members is hardly out of the ordinary.   From reading some of the editor comments here it appears that several editors rightly or wrongly are pleading, "How can you take this bio away from an ethnic minority woman who died in service to her country?"  Do the sources here meet  if this soldier was a Euro-American male
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  in my view. The incident itself doesn't appear to be notable, either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:SOLDIER is an |essay and "''Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community''".  The sourcing seems quite adequate to verify the facts of the matter and, as she has received several significant honors, passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Essays (WP:ESSAY||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: The references aren't that good, when you examine them. A couple of them are remembrance-type entries, several are passing mentions and several are standard notices of fellow soldiers that are fallen, but apart from that fails . She is not well known at all.  She doesn't pass  and while it is an essay and not a policy, it is universally accepted and used at Afd to set the bar and accepted by closing administrators, as an indication of notability. She was also one of several people in the helicopter, there is nothing that makes her stand out amongst her fellow soldiers,  and the assertion in the lede as the first... is absurd as well. There is no policy in Wikipedia anywhere that states such an assertion. Perhaps if it was a truly unique experience it would be possible, like the first women to land on the mars. She was alive and her life did have meaning
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: I think per  and , this article should be kept. Per , there are four independent and reliable sources that offer context about the significance of Vega's service and her military career that have been removed from the article. I apologize that my introduction of the expert opinions in the ''Chicago Tribune'' sources was clumsy; these sources both namecheck Vega and add to what was said by the ''Stars and Stripes'' source in the article about the role of women, and I think they both help address the concern raised above, and help support why this article should not go away per . I also think the significance of the Chinook crash discussed in the ''New York Times'' and ''Los Angeles Times'', which both also namecheck Vega, can be included to improve the article; while it may not weigh heavily towards notability, it adds encyclopedic content. In addition, the focus on Vega being the first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone has never been a subjective determination by editors, but something noted by sources, such as the DOD; she also has a main gate of a military base named in her honor with a plaque that highlights more than this fact
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:NEXIST||WP:NEXIST||WP:IAR)

Comment: per nom's well developed arguments, mainly no SIGCOV; also  is not just any random essay. I oppose the interpretation of notability conventions held by Mercy11. Project-level techniques of identifying notability are very helpful for determining the best application of an SNG in specific context, and have strong consensus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: per  based on the legacies and honors she received
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: doesn't meet . Although an interesting topic, she herself is not that notable as a military person. Fails . Additionally, https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Frances_M._Vega page views from the last 90 days stand at 738. Page views spiked the two days following the deletion nomination (48 and 49) respectively which is an eight of the total page views it received in the last 90 days combined. High suggestion that its not a notable topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: for failing .  I seeing citations from internal military publications but the mainstream news publications only include her name in the reporting of the crash.  The Chicago Tribune article is a list of female military casualities comes from a news feed source.  She was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star but that alone doesn't meet any of the eight criteria outlined in  mainly regarding, "... an important role in a significant military event."  She was in the wrong place at the wrong time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:MILPERSON)

Comment: per not meeting  as explained by Blue Riband and Intothatdarkness above.  comes to mind. A string of mentions does not = independent and reliable significant coverage. I tried to do a  but didn't find sources to expand. I trimmed most of the unsourced/poorly sourced information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:HEYMANN)

Comment: At Wikipedia we have a decades' long policy that |local consensus doesn't trump Wikipedia |community consensus. Any group of editors can write an essay for others to read but, when used in DN discussions, essays are nothing more than local consensus. Essays are so low in the Consensus totem pole that the  policy itself picks on them by name (''"no more status than an essay"''). So, no, essays not only do not compare to  but, in fact, to even use the two in the same DN argument shows a gross misunderstanding of what drives Wikipedia. As such, the  essay isn't worth a dime here, and the guide that matters here is  and, more precisely, , the guideline for notability of biographies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONLIMITED||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:PG||WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: Since the discussion was relisted, additional independent and reliable sources have been added, including a 2004 ''Los Angeles Times'' article that provides biographical information (which supports notability per ) and is more than a standard notice of fallen soldiers, of which there are many, and typically are simply lists of names and sometimes brief information about the circumstances of their death; an additional ''Chicago Tribune'' source with another expert, in addition to the one already included in the article, commenting on the significance of Vega and the service of her fellow female soldiers during the Iraq war; a 2003 article from ''El Nuevo Herald'' identifying Vega as one of four Puerto Rican soldiers, which is also different than a standard notice. Before the discussion was relisted, a book source was added to the article that found Vega worthy of notice as the first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone. All of these newly-added sources appear to add further objective support for  notability, because this is not trivial coverage and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The assertion is made in the lede because multiple independent and reliable sources make this assertion; it is not . In addition, it is not the only assertion of notability, due to the significant honors Vega has also received from the military, per , that are distinct from her fellow soldiers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:BASIC||WP:ORIGINAL||WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: I have added information to the article from a ''Stars and Stripes'' reference that discusses Vega in the context of female participation in the military generally and the Iraq war specifically, which provides further objective support for her notability, at minimum per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: I don’t see GNG satisfied neither is  met
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)