Talk:Lisa Head

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image[edit]

I've emailed the MOD asking them please to release an image of Captain Head under the CC-BY-SA.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since they didn't reply and there's an image now available under the MOD News Licence, I've uploaded it.—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Is the subject of this article sufficiently notable to justify an article that's essentially a rehash of a single press release? Worth bearing in mine Wikipedia is not a news respository.

ALR (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that being a soldier that died in war does not automatically make one pass Wikipedia:Notability. In order to pass, Captain Head's death would have to cause something else with a wider result, such as mass protests against the war or inquiries into the quality of safety training. All due respect to her, but we cannot promote recentism; we must take a historical view. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown she's notable by linking to the multiple independent reliable sources that have noted her, folks. The WP:GNG isn't complicated to understand.—S Marshall T/C 16:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're all essentially derived from the same press release. That's not "independent", will she still be in the papers by Saturday? Unlikely...
ALR (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're editorially independent, which is what matters.—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding the whole independence thing, will her death be in the papers in a month? Let alone a week? If in mid-May they still have articles about her death, then you may have a point. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot predict what kind of importance her death may have down the road. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability guidelines were invented as a tool to detect and remove marketing spam, Crisco 1492. They were not intended as a blunt instrument to bludgeon good faith editors who are adding verifiable and uncontroversial content in non-promotional language, and to use them in that way is a perversion of their intent.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that what you were doing was wrong; in fact, you should be commended for a well written addition to the encyclopedia and going to extra mile to try and get a photo that we can use. However, the simple fact is that right now this article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability since there is nothing that shows that Captain Head's death was more notable than the other 360 or so British soldiers who have died in the current war. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the other 360 soldiers have articles is irrelevant. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) It is a fact that when a woman soldier is killed in the line of duty, her death attracts more media attention than would the death of a male; and certainly, you could make a convincing case that this isn't rational, but it's true. The media circus attending her death has resulted in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which means its subject is presumed notable according to the WP:GNG, notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick Google search to check to see if it is a media circus, I've decided (tentatively) that the article as-is should probably be held on to. BBC reports that her death was front page news in more than one newspaper, and The Daily Mail is comparing Kate Middleton quite unfavourably to her. I can see your point that this appears notable. We cannot know if it passes Wikipedia:Notability for another few weeks (when we will see if her death is truly, historically notable), but for now I agree with you that this article is warranted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa Head. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lisa_Head&oldid=1207599930"