Deletion of Lisa Head

Comment: I think there is enough notability to satisfy , , and . Though I have to note, she's probably at the bottom of what I would consider the "notable first" threshold; any further and we can start to come up with "notable first"s for anyone (i.e. the first left-handed blonde Rhode Islander to die in Iraq, the first field cook from Wales to become a double amputee, and so on down the slippery slope). I don't think this falls under  or  because her death is being treated with a significance all it's own, and it is persisting well after the typical duration of buzz (not to mention more intense coverage than is typical of what I've seen for the UK) for a soldier killed in the current war
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO||WP:MILPEOPLE||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:1E)

Comment: being ''second'' isn't inherently notable and all of the sources are derived from the same MOD press release, so I'd suggest that it's not in compliance with the GNG anyway.  There is no other assertion of notability and nothing referenced to anything of substance. We've essentially got a  situation as all of the sources are on the same date and nothing subsequent in anything except the local paper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: although there are references to a few news articles IMO this only appears to be passing coverage and does not constitute "significant independent coverage". As such the subject would appear not to be notable under both  and /N
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MILMOS)

Comment: per ALR -  isn't met here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: She was the first woman bomb disposal operator to be killed on active service, and the first woman officer to be killed in Afghanistan. In terms of , well, okay, you could rename it to Death of Lisa Head to make it fit Wikipedia's bizarre one-event rules, but I've always been of the opinion that articles should be called what encyclopaedia users would search for.In terms of  there's a tension with  to resolve; what we have here is very significant coverage in reliable sources, in that the death made the front pages of most British newspapers and sites.  Per the , this establishes a presumption of notability.  This places the onus is on the nominator to prove that she ''isn't'' notable.And finally, notability isn't ''for'' this.  Our notability rules are basically a tool for detecting and removing marketing spam.  They weren't intended to be used to remove verifiable and non-promotional content from good faith users
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:NTEMP||WP:GNG)

Comment: per nom and ALR.  This is a tragic story and, absolutely, no question, it should tear at most readers' hearts.  But the various guidelines, ,  and , all support deletion.  Sorry.  (But given the nature of the story, I'm betting the consensus will be to keep, and that's cool.  I believe in consensus, even when I'm on the wrong side of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:1E)

Comment: The two sad firsts mentioned by Kernel above constitute "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per our policy . Per , an essay of very persuasive value, she "played an important role in a significant military event", for the same reasons
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:SOLDIER)